



5. *«W «cP 



/\ lip/ ♦♦*% V 








*** ■ 








^ , -. 



: V** #g° \/ A\ XS 'Mki \* 

: /\W\W/\W' 












The Anglican Episcopate 



AND 



THE AMERICAN COLONIES 



BY 



ARTHUR LYON CROSS, Ph.D. 

INSTRUCTOR IN HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

SOMETIME ASSISTANT IN AMERICAN HISTORY IN 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY 



NEW YORK 
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 

LONDON AND BOMBAY 
1902 






THE"\f8RAR* OF 
CONGRESS. 

Two Cowea Rccraveo 

AUG. 16 1902 

COP/PIOHT ENfWv 

^ 2. 'foi- 
ls ^XXc HO. 

COPY B. 



?Tku£ 



Copyright, IQ02, 
By the President and Fellows of Harvard College 



Nortoooa Jiress 

J. S. Cushing & Co. — Berwick & Smith 

Norwood Mass. U.S.A. 



PREFACE. 



This monograph, in its original form, was accepted 
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
at Harvard University; it also was awarded the Toppan 
Prize in 1899. Since that time the work has been, to 
a considerable extent, recast, revised, and enlarged. 

The author feels greatly indebted to the help of 
many friends for whatever merit his book may possess. 
Among his former teachers at Harvard his chief ac- 
knowledgments are due to Professor Edward Channing, 
under whose guidance the work was prepared, and who 
has liberally contributed advice and assistance at every 
stage of its progress ; to Professor Albert Bushnell Hart 
for many valuable suggestions ; and to Professor Charles 
Gross, who kindly consented to read the proof. Miss 
Addie F. Rowe, of Cambridge, rendered efficient service 
in getting the manuscript ready for the press. The 
extensive privileges and courteous assistance received 
from authorities and officials at the Harvard Univer- 
sity Library, the Library of the Massachusetts Historical 
Society, and John Carter Brown Library, in this coun- 
try, and at the British Museum, the Public Record 



vi PREFACE. 

Office, and Lambeth Palace, in England, are gratefully 
acknowledged. Especially the author wishes to express 
his deep obligations to Mandell Creighton, late Bishop 
of London, for generously placing at his disposal the 
rich collections at Fulham Palace relating to his subject. 



ARTHUR LYON CROSS. 



University of Michigan, 
April, 1902. 



CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER I. 

Page 
The Beginnings of Episcopal Control over the Colonies . . i 

CHAPTER II. 

The Policy and Work of Bishop Compton, 1675-1714 .... 25 

CHAPTER III. 
The Royal Commission: Gibson to Sherlock, 1 723-1 748 ... 52 

CHAPTER IV. 
Attempts to Obtain an American Episcopate, 1638- 1748 ... 88 

CHAPTER V. 

Expiration of the Bishop of London's Commission: Sherlock's 

Policy, 1748-1761 113 

CHAPTER VI. 
The Mayhew Controversy, 1 763-1 765 139 

CHAPTER VII. 
The Chandler-Chauncy Controversy, 1 767-1 771 161 

CHAPTER VIII. 
The Newspaper Controversy, 1 768-1 769 195 

CHAPTER IX. 

The Conventions and the Episcopal Question, 1 766-1 775 . . 215 



viii CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER X. 

Page 
The Opposition in Virginia 226 

CHAPTER XI. 
From Sherlock's Death to the Revolution, 1 761-1775 . . . 241 

CHAPTER XII. 

After the Revolution: the Establishment of an American 

Episcopate 263 



APPENDICES. 



A. Illustrative Documents: — 

I. Order of the King in Council vesting the Churches of Delph 

and Hamburgh in the Bishop of London, 1633 .... 273 
II. Commission for regulating Plantations, 1634 274 

III. Observations of the Bishop of London regarding a Suffragan 

for America, 1707 277 

IV. Correspondence of Commissary Gordon of Barbadoes con- 

cerning the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of London in the 

Colonies, 1724-1725 279 

V. Gibson's Commission and Relative Papers, 1 726-1 730 . . 283 
VI. Methodus Procedendi Contra Clericos Irregulares in Planta- 

tionibus Americanis, 1728 294 

VII. A Typical License from the Bishop of London to a Colonial 

Clergyman, 1742 309 

VIII. Letter from A. Spencer to Bishop Sherlock stating the Re- 
sult of his Mission to the American Colonies for the Purpose 
of sounding Public Opinion on the Question of introducing 

Bishops, 1749 310 

IX. Extracts from the Report of a Committee for preventing the 

Establishment of Bishops in the Colonies, 1749-1750 . . 311 
X. Bishop Sherlock's Circular to the Commissaries, of Septem- 
ber 19, 1750, with some hitherto Unpublished Replies . . 311 
XI. Correspondence between the Bishop of London and the 
English Ministry, relative to the Introduction of Bishops 
into the American Colonies, 1 749-1 750 320 



CONTENTS. ix 

Page 
XII. Bishop Sherlock's Report on the State of the Church of 

England in the Colonies, 1749 332 

XIII. Rev. Thomas Bradbury Chandler to the Bishop of London, 

stating his Reasons for writing the Appeal to the Public, 
1767 345 

XIV. Legislation of the Parliament of Great Britain to provide 

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons for the Church of England 

in the United States of America, 1 784-1 786 346 

B. List of the Archbishops of Canterbury and Bishops of 

London during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth 
Centuries 349 

C. List of Special Works 350 

INDEX 358 



THE ANGLICAN EPISCOPATE AND 
THE AMERICAN COLONIES. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL OVER THE 

COLONIES. 

The history of the relations between the Anglican episcopate 
and the English plantations in North America may be studied 
under two aspects. One aspect has to do with the jurisdic- 
tion which the Bishop of London exercised over the colonial 
Church of England ; the other is concerned with the attempts 
which were made from time to time to introduce resident 
bishops into the colonies, and to transfer his powers into their 
hands. 

In the study of this subject, the origin, nature, and actual 
workings of the Bishop of London's authority as colonial dioce- 
san will be considered first. After that, the earlier attempts to 
establish bishops resident in the colonies will be examined, and 
an effort will be made to explain the motives actuating the 
authors of this movement. The next step will be to describe 
the opposition which gradually manifested itself against the 
project. This will bring us to the outbreak of the controversies 
between those who sought to secure, and those who strove 
to prevent, the settlement of resident bishops. After tracing 
at some length the details of this struggle, and endeavoring 
to estimate its significance, a short account will be given of 
the steps which finally, after the United States became an 
independent nation, led to the establishment of a native Ameri- 
can episcopate. The work will close with a general survey 
and summing up of the conclusions to be drawn from the 
whole discussion. 



2 THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL. 

The subject thus sketched in bare outline would seem at first 
glance to be one of purely ecclesiastical concern ; but, while 
this feature is largely predominant, there is also a political 
aspect, claiming the attention of any one who aims at an under- 
standing of our pre-Revolutionary history. At the very outset 
we find secular considerations playing an important part in the 
Laudian project to establish episcopal control over the colonies, 
as a preliminary step toward the founding of a state church. 
After the failure of this plan, religious and political questions 
cease for more than a century to have any perceptible connec- 
tion. With the approach of the War for Independence, however, 
ecclesiastical issues become involved with those of practical 
politics, and exhibit a phase, not altogether uninteresting or 
unimportant, in the final struggle leading up to the separation 
from Great Britain. But, waiving for the present any further 
considerations on this point, let us see what kind of authority the 
bishops of London exercised over the colonies, and how they 
came to be vested with it. 

Among the functions which, according to English ecclesias- 
tical law, appertained to a bishop of the Church of England, 
those which concern us in this survey may be grouped under 
two heads. 1 The first, or more purely ecclesiastical, function 
had to do mainly with administering the government and disci- 
pline of the church, — with consecrating sacred edifices, for 
example, and with confirming, ordaining, suspending, and de- 
grading ministers. The second function, which was rather 
civil, or ecclesiastico-civil, in its character, comprised a certain 
jurisdiction over the probate of wills, the issue of marriage 
licenses, and the presentation to benefices. 

Although these functions, and many others, were constantly 
and successfully exercised by every bishop in the mother coun- 
try, it is easy to see how difficult, nay, how impossible, it was 
for a bishop resident in England to perform them for the dis- 
tant colonies with any satisfaction to himself or to those com- 
mitted to his charge. Hence, many devices were employed, 

1 Nothing need be said here of the bishop's legislative functions, or of his 
competence in causes not purely ecclesiastical, for these were never extended 
to the colonies. 



COMMISSARIES IN THE COLONIES. 3 

with more or less success, to avoid the difficulties necessarily 
attendant upon this unfortunate condition of things. Some 
of the offices, such as ordination, required the personal par- 
ticipation of a bishop ; accordingly, since the bishop could 
not or would not come to America, candidates for orders 
were obliged to go to England. The hardships and expense 
which these journeys involved were one of the most frequent 
complaints of those who argued for the necessity of an Ameri- 
can episcopate. 1 

Other episcopal functions related chiefly to the oversight and 
discipline of the church and clergy. These duties were, by the 
end of the seventeenth century, delegated to commissaries, 2 
officers whom bishops of the Church of England are accustomed 
to appoint to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction in particular 
parts of their dioceses, where, owing to distance or to other 
causes, they cannot attend in person. A commissary may be 
empowered to hold visitations, to call conventions, to superin- 
tend the conduct of the clergy, and, in general, to exercise the 
authority of officer-principal or vicar-general. Appeals, how- 
ever, lay not to his bishop, but to the archbishop, or to some 
great officer of state. 3 The workings of the commissarial sys- 

1 See, for example, Abbey, English Church and Bishops in the Eighteenth 
Century, i. 362-363. 

2 There is possibly a solitary earlier instance. The Reverend William 
Morell, who came to New England in 1623, is said to have exercised some 
sort of commissarial jurisdiction. He returned to England in 1624, and we 
hear of no other commissary in the colonies until the appointment of the Rev- 
erend James Blair in 1689 (cf. Simeon E. Baldwin, in American Antiquarian 
Society, Proceedings, New Series, xiii. 192 : citing Charles Francis Adams, 
Three Episodes of Massachusetts History, i. 142, 154-155, 229 ; Massachusetts 
Historical Society, Collections, 4th Series, iii. 154; Perry, American Episcopal 
Church, i. 81, 395, ii. 600). The statement of the Reverend Richard Peters, 
in a letter to Bishop Terrick, November 6, 1766, that there had been commis- 
saries since 1620, seems to be almost entirely without foundation. The letter 
is printed in Perry, Historical Collections relating to the American Colonial 
Church, ii. (Pennsylvania) 409-410. 

3 See Dalcho, Protestant Episcopal Church in South-Carolina, 78-79, citing 
Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, Article 127, where the qualifications 
for a commissary are enumerated. Cf. also Burn, Ecclesiastical Law, i. 290, 
ii. 8. The commission printed below in Appendix A, No. ii., will serve to 
show what was expected from a colonial commissary. 



4 THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL. 

tern will be examined when we come to consider historically the 
relations between the Bishop of London and the several 
colonies. 1 

The more properly civil part of the bishop's jurisdiction — 
such as had to do with probate of wills, marriage licenses, and 
collations to benefices — was vested, not in these episcopal 
representatives, but in the colonial governors as ordinaries or 
lay bishops. These powers were expressly excepted out of the 
Bishop of London's commission (when he came to have one) as 
diocesan of the plantations. 2 The reason for this limitation 
seems to have been that in the early days of the colonies, long 
before the bishop's authority had come to be permanently recog- 
nized, the governors had been accustomed to perform these 
functions, 3 and that, by the time a commission was issued to the 

1 Much light on this subject is to be obtained from the letters of the various 
commissaries to the bishops of London : e.g., James Blair, November 18, 17 14, 
and February 10, 1723-24, in Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 130- 
131, 250-251; Alexander Garden, February 1, 1751, Fulham MSS.\ Roger 
Price, April 19, 1751, ibid. ; Robert Jenny, May 23, 1751, ibid. ; William 
Dawson, July 15, 1751, in Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 377-379. 
Some of the letters which have not hitherto been printed may be found below 
in Appendix A, No. x. 

2 See the commissions and instructions to various governors after 1685 ; 
e.g., to Governor Fletcher of New York, New York Documents, iii. 821. 

3 See, for example, an act of the Virginia legislature of 1662 : " That for the 
preservation of purity and unity of doctrine and discipline in the church, and 
the right administration of the sacraments, no minister shall be admitted to 
officiate in this country, but such as shall produce to the governor a testimo- 
nial that he hath received his ordination from some bishop in England, and 
shall then subscribe, to be conformable to the orders and constitutions of the 
Church of England, and the laws there established : upon which the Governor 
is hereby requested to induct the said ?ninister into any parish that shall ?nake 
presentation of hi?n : and if another person pretending himself a minister, 
shall, contrary to this act, presume to teach or preach, publicly or privately, 
the governor and council are hereby desired and empowered to silence the 
person so offending, and upon his obstinate persistence to compell him to 
depart the country with the first convenience." (Trott, Laws, No. VI., p. 116 ; 
Hening, Statutes, ii. 46 ; Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, i. (Virginia) 53). 
Cf. also the following statement : " The judicial office of Commissary had at 
first been vested in Governors of Colonies; but, in 1695, the Governor and 
Assembly of Maryland agreed in a petition to William and Mary, to transfer 
it, as a purely ecclesiastical office, to the Bishop of London, and wrote to the 



CLERICAL APPOINTMENTS IN THE COLONIES. 5 

Bishop of London denning his jurisdiction, the practice had 
become so firmly fixed by custom and legal enactment that the 
English authorities feared to excite the jealousy of the various 
colonial governments by removing from the secular arm duties 
involving such dignity and profit. Or it may have been that the 
government felt the need of having a stronger coercive force 
behind these important functions than could have been guaran- 
teed either by a non-resident bishop or by his commissarial 
representative. The governor's power of ordinary did not 
include that of patronage, or of presentation in any way except 
by lapse ; nor did it carry with it the right to prefer any minis- 
ter to an ecclesiastical benefice without a certificate from the 
Bishop of London vouching for the soundness of his orthodoxy 
and his morals. 1 

In the royal colonies, 2 the candidates for clerical appointments 
were presented by the vestries, and were inducted into their 
cures by the governors. In case of a vacancy or a lapse, the 
governor or the commissary recommended a successor, who, 
after the vestry had received him, officiated as rector. If he 
happened to be inducted by the governor, he enjoyed full legal 
possession. But commonly the vestries, either from arbitrari- 
ness or from a desire to guard themselves from unworthy 
pastors, failed to present their ministers for induction, and con- 
sequently could and did remove them at will. This power of 

Bishop, requesting him to send over a Clergyman to discharge its duties" 
(Anderson, Colonial Church, ii. 383). 

1 For a full discussion of the relative powers of bishop and governor by a 
contemporary authority, see Commissary Blair's " Remarks " in the Virginia 
convention of 1719, in Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 218-245, 
from the original manuscripts of the convention. 

2 What is here said applies particularly to Virginia, where the establishment 
was more of a reality than in any of the other colonies. The royal provinces 
were Virginia, the Carolinas, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and 
Georgia ; the proprietary, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware ; the charter, 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The Carolinas, New Jersey, 
and Georgia, were, however, originally granted to proprietaries. New Hamp- 
shire for a time formed a part of Massachusetts. The Church of England 
was established in Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina, and in three counties 
of New York. At a later period a partial establishment existed in North 
Carolina also. 



6 THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL. 

removal was their only safeguard ; for an appeal to a non-resi- 
dent diocesan, possessed of inadequate powers of coercion, was, 
to say the least, uncertain. 1 

In the proprietary colony of Maryland the case was somewhat 
unique. Practically the whole control over the appointment of 
ministers was here vested in the hands of the proprietary, by virtue 
of the right of presentation which he enjoyed, and owing to the 
fact that the governor, in whom the right of induction lay, was 
subject to appointment and removal by him alone. Obviously, 
then, it depended solely upon his personal will to say what 
powers the bishop or his commissary might exercise in the 
colony. To be sure, the bishop enjoyed a certain negative con- 
trol, in that he issued the license to the clerical candidate ; but 
this done, his power really ceased, for, when the minister was 
once inducted into office, neither the bishop, his commissary, 
nor the vestry had any authority to deprive him of the tempo- 
ralities of his living. 2 Accordingly, whatever jurisdiction the 
bishop or those who represented him might seek to exercise, 
although it might have moral weight, could have no legal or 
coercive force. 

To sum up : so far as one can safely generalize, one may say 
that in both royal and proprietary colonies the governor pos- 
sessed the power of induction, while the Bishop of London 
issued the certificate empowering the candidate to perform the 

1 See, for example, Governor Culpeper's " Report to the Lords of Trade 
and Plantations, on the Present State of Virginia," December 12, 1681, in 
Sainsbury, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West 
Indies, 1681-1685, p. 155. There were innumerable disputes over this matter 
of presentations, particularly in Virginia (cf. Perry, Historical Collections, i. 
(Virginia), passim) . 

2 One writer has put the case thus : " Lord Baltimore selected a clergyman 
in England, and appointed him to a living ; the Bishop of London gave him a 
license ; the Governor of the province inducted him ; if he did wrong the 
commissary tried him, if there chanced to be a commissary ; and, when 
convicted, no power punished him ; for after induction, even his lordship the 
proprietor could not remove him ; and the Bishop of London, nominally his 
diocesan, could neither give nor take away the meanest living in the province " 
(Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, ii. (Maryland) 190). Cf. also Tiffany, 
Protestant Episcopal Church, 75-76 ; McConnell, American Episcopal Church, 
107-108. 



CLERICAL APPOINTMENTS IN THE COLONIES. 7 

clerical functions ; that in the royal colonies the power of the 
diocesan was restricted enough, in the proprietary it was practi- 
cally subject to the arbitrary will of the proprietor. 

In the Northern and Middle colonies, where, with the excep- 
tion of three counties of New York, the Church of England had 
no legal footing, the governors had little or nothing to do with 
clerical appointments. In those churches which were assisted 
by the Society for Propagating the Gospel, the ministers were 
appointed by that body ; in the other churches nominally 
by the Bishop of London, but in many cases — particularly in 
the later years — practically by the congregations themselves. 1 
In all these colonies, commissaries were the exception rather 
than the rule; 2 but, as will be seen later, where they did exist — 
in Pennsylvania and New York, for example — they exercised a 
more or less active supervision. 

This brief preliminary survey is intended to show in outline 
the nature of the authority of the Bishop of London over his 
charges beyond the seas, and of his relations to the other 
colonial officials in fields where their jurisdictions came in con- 
tact. It has been made evident that the exercise of such 
authority as his Lordship legally possessed was hampered by 
many adverse circumstances, particularly by the confusion of 

1 Since there seems to have been no fixed rule, it is hard to generalize 
on this matter. Later on in the course of this discussion a few particular 
cases will be examined. This much one may say : that the larger churches 
in the more important towns, — for example, Christ Church, Philadelphia, and 
King's Chapel, Boston, — which kept up an intimate and regular intercourse 
with their diocesan, allowed themselves in the main to be ruled by his judg- 
ment (cf. Baldwin, in American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, New Series, 
xiii. 197). After the resignation of Roger Price in 1746, however, the congre- 
gation of King's Chapel began to choose its rectors without reference to the 
Bishop of London (cf. Baldwin, ibid., 199-200, citing Greenwood, History of 
King's Chapel, 105, 179). For fuller references, see Perry, Historical Collec- 
tions, ii.-iii. (Massachusetts and Pennsylvania), and Foote, Annals of Kings 
Chapel, passim. 

2 During the entire colonial period (leaving out of account the brief term of 
the Reverend William Morell, noticed above, p. 3, note 2) there was only one 
commissary for all New England, and one for New York. Pennsylvania, 
whose commissarial district included Delaware, was a little better off in this 
respect. 



8 THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL. 

functions between the ecclesiastical and the secular powers in 
the various colonies, and by the fact that the bishop enjoyed 
so small a share in the appointment of the clergy committed to 
his care. Furthermore, since he could only confirm and ordain 
such candidates from across the water as chose to come to 
him, thereby being deprived of all initiative in propagating his 
faith through American agencies, his activity, not only in gov- 
erning, but also in fostering and strengthening the growth of 
the colonial branch of the Anglican church was checked on 
almost every side. Nevertheless, by virtue of long-established 
custom, which linked his name with the control of the colonial 
churches, his authority and influence were exerted and felt in 
many ways : through the powers conferred on him, at one 
period by a clause inserted in the commissions of the various 
colonial governors, at another by a patent from the crown ; 
through the visitations and exhortations of his commissaries, 
when there happened to be any commissaries ; and, finally, 
through his connection, as an officer of state, with that part of 
the English government which was vested with the oversight 
of the ecclesiastico-political affairs of the colonies. Let us now 
pass on to a brief consideration of the origin of such ecclesi- 
astical jurisdiction as the Bishop of London, in his capacity as 
colonial diocesan, came to possess. 

At the time of the Restoration, a tradition prevailed to the 
effect that the Bishop of London's colonial authority rested on 
an order in council issued in the Laudian period. When, how- 
ever, a careful search, made about 1675, failed to reveal the 
existence of any such document, it became necessary to account 
for the origin of the jurisdiction in some other way. The ex- 
planation which was finally adopted, and which has since been 
generally accepted, was as follows : As soon as the territories 
of the Virginia Company had come to be reasonably well 
populated, a bishop was necessary to ordain ministers and to 
exercise a general supervision over the church and clergy in 
those parts ; since the Bishop of London for the time being 
happened to be a member of the company, and had mani- 
fested some interest in the church beyond the seas, the charge 
was intrusted to him, and from the precedent thus established 



THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED IN VIRGINIA. 9 

may be traced the beginnings of the diocesan control of the 
bishops of London over the English plantations. 1 

The facts on which this view is based were first presented 
at length by Bishop Sherlock, in a " Report on the State of 
the Church of England in the Colonies," laid before the king 
in council in 1759. Sherlock begins his narrative with the 
issue of the first Virginia charter, April 10, 1606, by which 
each of the companies thereby created was to have a council 
for governing "according to such Laws Ordinances and In- 
structions as sho d in that behalf be given and signed by His 
Majesty's hand or sign manual & pass under the Privy Seal 
of England." " On the 20th Nov r , 1606," he continues, "the 
King in pursuance of the right reserved to himself, gave divers 
orders under his Sign manuall and the Privy Seal, one of which 



1 A work published in 1706, entitled An Account of the Society for Propa- 
gating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, remarks (p. 11) with regard to the early 
tradition : " An Order of King and Council is said to have been made to 
commit unto the Bishop of London, for the time being, the Care and Pastoral 
charge of sending over Ministers into our Foreign Plantations, and having the 
Jurisdiction of them. But when the present Lord Bishop of London was 
advanced to that See in 1675, his Lordship found this Title so defective that 
little or no Good had come of it. 11 For the facts that apparently form the 
basis of the view which afterward came to be held, see Bishop Sherlock's 
" Report on the State of the Church of England in the Colonies," New York 
Documents, vii. 360-369. References in later works are : Hawks and Perry, 
Connecticut Church Documents, i. 31-32; Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, 
i. (Virginia) 36-38; Evans, Theophilus Americamis, 310-312; Anderson, 
Colonial Church, i. 261-262 ; Wilberforce, Protestant Episcopal Church, 36- 
37 ; Tiffany, Protestant Episcopal Church, 23 ; Brodhead, New York, ii. 
456-457; Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 154-155 ; Foote, Annals of 
King's Chapel, i. 171-172. Whitney, in his History of South Carolijia (a doc- 
toral dissertation in the Harvard College Library), ii. 410, thinks that the 
jurisdiction was a usurpation in the first instance, and cites as authority for 
his opinion the following works : Rivers, South Carolina, supplementary 
chapter, 87 ; Dalcho, Protestant Episcopal Church in South-Carolina, 100 ; 
South Carolina Historical Society, Collections, ii. 178; Chalmers, Opinions, 
18-23. Anderson (Colonial Church, i. 410-412) and Makower (Constitutional 
History and Constitution of the Church of England, 141-142) have something 
to say on the beginnings of the Bishop of London's jurisdiction abroad, par- 
ticularly about an order in council which was actually issued in 1633, an d 
which will be considered below. 



10 THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL. 

was as follows : ' That the President Council and Ministers 
should provide that the true word and service of God should 
be preached planted and used, according to the Rites and 
Doctrine of the Church of England.'" 1 Sherlock says 
that when the second charter was issued, May 23, 1609, 
George Abbot, then Bishop of London, was made one of 
the grantees. 2 

But during the early years there was little need of any 
episcopal supervision ; for as late as 1620 there appear to 
have been only five clergymen in the colony of Virginia. 
As time went on, however, and as the colony began to 
grow, the necessity for more ministers became apparent, and 
the council for Virginia applied to John King, at that time 
Bishop of London and a member of its body, for his aid 
in furnishing them with " pious, learned, and painful minis- 
ters." The Bishop, who had, as early as 1619, shown his 
zeal for the welfare of the colonies by raising .£1000 toward 
a fund for educating the Indians, quickly responded. 3 In 
this way, according to the authorities cited above, grew up 
the Bishop of London's colonial jurisdiction; but neither 
now or later was any attempt made by him to incorporate 
Virginia or any other American colony into the diocese of 
London. 4 

1 This "Report" is printed in full in New York Documents, vii. 360 ff. 
There is a complete text of the charters and of the supplementary royal ordi- 
nance in Hening, Statutes, i. 57 ff. The citations above are in the words of 
Sherlock, which differ in some respects verbally, though not substantially, from 
Hening's text. 

2 This is evidently an error. Abbot did not join the Company until after 
the charter was issued, though his name was inserted in later copies intended 
for American use. Cf. Baldwin, in American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, 
New Series, xiii. 180, note 2. 

3 Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, i. (Virginia) 36-38 ; Abbey, English 
Church and Bishops, i. 75. 

4 See, particularly, Tiffany, Protestaitt Episcopal Church, 23. Baldwin 
(American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, New Series, xiii. 179-181) dis- 
cusses the subject of the early connection between the bishops of London and 
the colony of Virginia. He points out that it had begun before the time of 
King, with his predecessors Ravis and Abbot, and that though he " increased, 
... he did not originate, the supervision of the Bishop of London over the 



BISHOP KING AND THE VIRGINIA CHURCH n 

From several indications it is evident that Bishop King's 
connection with the colonial churches was only a passing one. 
He himself died in the year following the application just 
alluded to; and his successor either made no effort to supply 
the colony with ministers, even if he went so far as to make 
the attempt, and secured no recognition of his power over the 
churches there. As a proof of the first assertion, we have a 
statement in a report of the Virginia assembly in 1624, that 
there were many officiating clergymen who had no orders. 1 
In support of the second assertion, is the fact that among the 
thirty-five "articles" passed by this assembly, the first seven 
of which concern the church and the clergy, there is not one 
that intimates in the slightest degree that the Bishop of Lon- 
don had any authority or jurisdiction in the province at that 
time ; 2 and also the fact that, in an enumeration of the appur- 
tenances of the diocese of London, made by a contemporary 
biographer of Laud at the time of his accession to that see, in 
July, 1628, the colonies are not mentioned. 3 In one respect, 
however, the connection of Bishop King (and possibly that of 
his predecessors, Ravis and Abbot) with Virginia may have 
had some significance : it may have established a precedent in 
favor of the Bishop of London when the need of a colonial 

Virginia settlements, until it gradually came to be recognized as authoritative 
on both sides of the Atlantic." 

1 Sherlock's " Report, 11 New York Documents, vii. 361. 

2 Ibid. Among other things it was enacted " that there be an uniformity in 
our Church, as near as may be to the Canons in England, both in substance 
and circumstance ; and that all persons yield obedience to them under pain of 
censure" (Hening, Statutes, i. 122-124). See also Cornelison, The Relatio?i 
of Religion to Civil Government in the United States, 7 ; Tiffany, Protestant 
Episcopal Church, 11-12, 20-21, where, however, the acts of 1623-24 are 
assigned to the year 161 9. Note also that, neither in the new constitution 
which Sir Francis Wyatt brought over for the colony in 1621 nor in his com- 
mission and instructions, is there among the provisions with regard to religion, 
any mention of the Bishop of London. For the texts of these documents, see 
Hening, Statutes, i. 110-118. 

3 " As for the Diocess of London, it contains in it the whole counties of 
Middlesex and Essex, so much of Hertfordshire as was anciently possessed by 
the East Saxons, together with the peculiar Jurisdiction of the Church of 
St. Albans 1 ' (Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, 175). 



12 THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL. 

diocesan came to be felt. This is all that can reasonably be 
made of the incident. 1 

In seeking for a more satisfactory answer to the obscure ques- 
tion of the origin of the Bishop of London's colonial authority, 
we are not much helped by those who have written on this 
point. Bishop Wilberforce, for example, says that it is uncer- 
tain whence the jurisdiction sprang, if not from John King's 
exercise of episcopal functions as a representative of the Vir- 
ginia Company. Indeed, he regards this precedent as the sole 

i basis of the Bishop of London's authority till 1727, when a 
royal commission under the broad seal was issued to Bishop 
Gibson. 2 Many writers follow Wilberforce in this view. Others, 

j without making any positive assertion, have hinted at the pos- 
sibility of the existence of some sort of royal grant originally 
vesting the Bishop of London with the powers which he came 
to exercise. 3 Only two or three modern writers have even 
touched what appears to be the clue to the best solution of the 
problem. 4 

The proper place to look for the origin of the precedent — 
for it had a basis no more definite or authoritative — on which 
the Bishop of London's colonial jurisdiction rested, is in the 
Stuart policy, instigated by Laud, of seeking to extend the 
Church of England establishment to every part of the known 

1 The continuity of this connection has undoubtedly been overestimated. 
See, for example, Anderson (Colonial Church, i. 261), who says : " So far, one 
channel of direct and authoritative communication was established between 
himself [the Bishop of London] and the Clergymen whom he nominated, and 
over whom he was to exercise, as far as it was practicable, Episcopal controul." 

2 Protestant Episcopal Church, yj. 

3 For example, Evans {Theophilus Aniericanus, 313) says : " The authority 
of the Bishop of London has been believed to have rested on some grant from 
Great Britain ; but it is by no means certain that such a document existed 
although some of the bishops of London had something of the sort which was 
in force for their lives." The last clause is, of course, a vague reference to the 
royal commission issued to Bishop Gibson. For other references, see above, 
p. 9, note 1. 

4 Anderson and Makower (see above, note 3), following Laud's contempo- 
rary biographer, Peter Heylyn, who was court chaplain to both Charles I. and 
Charles II., and Judge Baldwin (American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, 
New Series, xiii. 181-182), who cites Anderson. 



LAUD AIMS TO EXTEND EPISCOPACY. 13 

world where the English government had a foothold. 1 It will 
be necessary to consider somewhat in detail the steps taken to 
carry this policy into effect. 

In the month of July, 1628, William Laud was translated to 
the see of London. 2 For the three or four years next ensuing 
he devoted himself to the work of reducing the people of 
England and Scotland to conformity to the established church. 
When at length he found time to look abroad, he discovered 
a state of affairs well calculated to make him apprehensive : 
the infection of Calvinism was spreading among the English 
trading stations and regiments in the Low Countries. Laud 
seems to have cared nothing for what the Protestants of other 
countries might do, — they might accept whatever form of 
doctrine and discipline they liked, so far as he was concerned, 
— but when it came to Englishmen living abroad the case was 
different. He shuddered to think of members of the Anglican 
communion becoming tainted with foreign heresies, and, what 
was infinitely worse, coming back and spreading the contagion 
at home. Yet this was precisely what was likely to happen : 
the congregations of the commercial settlements at Delft and 
Hamburg, for example, had gone so far as to reject the Church 
of England form of worship and to seek the ministration of 
Presbyterian divines. 3 

Having once realized the danger, Laud was not slow to act. 
Early in the year 1632 he sent suggestions to the Privy Council 
for the purpose of extending conformity to the national church 
to the English subjects beyond the seas. 4 The story of this 

1 See Gardiner, History of England, vii. 314-316. The most complete 
account of the whole question of Laud's procedure is in Heylyn, Cyprianus 
Anglicus, 218 ff., 259 ff. Other references are: Collier, Ecclesiastical History 
of Great Britain, ii. 752-753 ; Anderson, Colonial Church, i. 411 ; Makower, 
Constitutional History and Constitution of the Church of England, 141. 

2 Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, 175 ; Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesice Anglicance, 
ii. 304. 

3 Gardiner, History of England, vii. 314-316. 

4 " Our Bishop, 1 ' says Heylyn, " offereth some considerations to the Lords 
of the Council, concerning the Dishonour done to the Church of England by 
the wilful negligence of some Chaplains and other Ministers, both in our Fac- 
tories and Regiments beyond the Seas ; together with the Inconveniences 



14 THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL, 

action and of his subsequent procedure is quaintly told by 
Heylyn: Laud, he says, "not thinking he had done enough 
in order to the peace and uniformity of the Church of E?igland, 
by taking care for it here at home, his thoughts transported 
him with the like affection to preserve it from neglect abroad. 
To which end he had offered some considerations to the Lords 
of the Council, as before was said, Anno 1622, 1 relating to the 
regulation of Gods publick Worship amongst the English Fac- 
tories, and Regiments beyond the Seas, and the reducing of the 
French and Dutch Churches, settled in divers parts of this Realm, 
unto some conformity. In reference to the first he had not sate 
long in the Chaire of Canterbury when he procured an Order 
from the Lords of the Council, bearing date Octob. I, 1633. By 
which their English Churches and Regiments in Holland (and 
afterwards by degrees in all other Foreign parts and planta- 
tions) were required strictly to observe the English Liturgie 
with all the Rites and Ceremonies prescribed in it. Which 
Order contained the sum and substance of those considerations 
which he offered to the Board touching that particular." 2 

which redounded to it from the French and Diitch Congregations, settled in 
many places amongst our selves. He had long teemed with this Design, but 
was not willing to be his own Midwife when it came to Birth ; and therefore 
it was so contrived, that Windebank should make the Proposition at the Coun- 
cil Table, and put the Business on so far, that the Bishop might be moved by 
the whole Board to consider of the Several Points in that weighty Business : 
who being thus warranted to the execution of his own desires, presented two 
Memorials at the end of the year, March 22. The one relating to the Facto- 
ries and Regiments beyond the Seas ; the other to the French and Dutch Plan- 
tations in London, Kent, Norfolk, Yorkshire, Ha?npshire, and the Isle of 
Axholme . . . But it will not be long," continues Heylyn, "before we shall 
behold him sitting in the Chair of Canterbury [August 6, 1633], acting his 
own Counsels, bringing these Conceptions to the birth, and putting the design 
into execution" (Cyprianus Anglicus, 218, 222). Cf. also Collier, Ecclesiasti- 
cal History of Great Britain, ii. 752-753. Anderson (Colonial Church, i. 410) 
cites both these authorities, and Makower (Constitutional History and Consti- 
tution of the Church of England, 141) cites Anderson. 

1 This should be 1632. 

2 Cyprianus Anglicus, 259. Heylyn puts a rather optimistic construction on 
the motives that actuated Laud. For a less favorable view, compare the fol- 
lowing : "The length of this great Prelate's Arm would have reached not only 
to the Puritans in England, but the Factories beyond Sea, if it had been in 



THE ORDER IN COUNCIL OF 1633. 1 5 

This order in council of October 1, 1633, provided, among 
other things, " That the Company of Merchant Adventurers 
should not hereafter receive any minister into their Churches in 
foreign parts without his Majesty's approbation of the person, 
and that ye Liturgy and Discipline now used in ye Church of 
England should be received and established there, and that in 
all things concerning their Church Government they should be 
under ye Jurisdiction of ye Lord Bpp. of London as their Dioce- 
san." 2 Here the Bishop of London's jurisdiction abroad began ; 
and here it stopped, at least so far as the American colonies 
were concerned, 2 until after the Restoration. But a precedent 
had been established, and, although incomplete, it was probably 
the basis of the tradition which came to connect the name of the 
Bishop of London with the diocesan control of the English col- 
onies in all parts of the world, in America as well as elsewhere. 3 

his Power. The English Church at Hamburgh managed their Affairs ac- 
cording to the Geneva Discipline, by Elders and Deacons. In Holland they 
conformed to the Discipline of the States, and met them in their Synods and 
Assemblies, with consent of King James and of his present Majesty, till Sec- 
retary Windebank, at the Instance of this Prelate, offered some Proposals to 
the Privy Council for their better Regulation" (see Neal, Ptiritans, ii. 237- 
238, based on Prynne, Canterbury 's Doom, 389) . Laud's plan of seeking to 
enforce conformity to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England 
in Holland was never carried out ; for the churches there were supported by 
the States, and, as the English ministers represented in a letter to the king, 
would be in danger of losing their maintenance if they submitted to any 
innovations. 

1 State Papers, Domestic Series, Charles I., No. 247, October 1-15, 1633. 

2 This remark does not, of course, apply to his activity in connection with 
the churches at Delft and Hamburg. A careful search through the English 
State Papers, under the guidance of the Calendars, has failed to reveal a 
single instance of the Bishop of London's diocesan control over the churches 
in America during the Laudian period. 

3 The persistence of this tradition is attested by the following incident : In 
1675 Henry Compton desired to ascertain the basis of the colonial authority 
which was usually regarded as belonging to his see. To that end he applied 
to the Lords of Trade and Plantations. At a meeting of a committee of that 
body held January 21, 1675, this entry was made: "Their Lordships desire 
that enquiry be made touching the Jurisdiction which the Bps. of London 
hath over the Foreign Plantations ; in order to w ch see the Charter of Vir- 
ginia and New England, or by any other order since, but most probably about 
the year 1629, when Bp. Laud was in Chief Authority.' 1 ' 1 [The last italics are 



1 6 THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL. 

To one who reads the whole document, 1 it will be at once 
apparent that the authority which it conferred upon the Bishop 
of London did not extend to the colonies in general, but was 
limited to the churches of the Merchant Adventurers Company 
at Delft and Hamburg. Heylyn seems to imply that its provi- 
sions were afterward extended to all other English plantations 
abroad, including those in America; for, in concluding his account 
of the events just narrated, he says : " And now at last we have 
the face of an English Church in Holland, responsal to the 
Bishops of London for the time being, as a part of their Diocess, 
directly and immediately subject to their Jurisdiction. The like 
course was also prescribed for our Factories in Hamborough, 
and those farther off, that is to say, in Turkey, in the Moguls 
Dominions, the Indian Islands, the Plantations in Virginia, the 
Barbadoes, and all other places where the English had any 
standing Residence in the way of Trade." 2 In spite of Heylyn's 
statement, there are good reasons for concluding that, whatever 
may have been the original intention, no authoritative action 
based on this order was taken, in the Laudian period, to extend 
the Bishop of London's jurisdiction to the American plantations, 
or to incorporate the churches there into his diocese. In the 
first place, there is no record of anything of the sort among the 
State Papers, where one would naturally expect to find it ; 3 in 

the present author's.] Sherlock's " Report,' 11 New York Documents, vii. 362 ; 
cf. also Sainsbury, Calendar of State Papers, Colo7iial Series, America and 
West Indies, 1 675-1 676, pp. 337-338. This is, of course, a question of origins. 
The Bishop of London received no legal authority to act as diocesan of the 
colonies until after the Restoration. 

1 Those parts of the order in council which relate to the subject in hand are 
printed below in Appendix A, No. i., from the original manuscript in the 
British Public Records Office. 

2 " It was now hoped," he adds fervently, " that there would be a Church of 
England in all Courts of Christendom, in the Chief Cities of the Turk, and 
other great Mahometan Princes, in all our Factories and Plantations in every 
known Part of the world, by which it might be rendered as diffused and 
Catholick as the Church of Pome' 1 '' (Cyprianus Anglicus, 260). Compare also 
what he says above, p. 14. 

3 Note also that, although the successive governors of Virginia (the only 
colony where as yet the Church of England had anything like a legal status) 
were encouraged to support and foster the Church of England, they were not 



REASON- FOR CHOOSING THE BISHOP OF LONDON. \J 

the second place, Laud, as will subsequently be shown, employed 
other methods for administering the affairs of the Church of 
England in this country. 

The question naturally arises why the Bishop of London, rather 
than any other, was chosen to act as diocesan of the foreign 
churches which Laud was seeking to reduce to conformity. It 
is hardly probable that the previous relations of Bishops Ravis, 
Abbot, and King with the colony of Virginia had any weight in 
determining the choice : the independent character of the Laudian 
procedure detracts from the likelihood of this hypothesis. More- 
over, there are other reasons to account for the selection, if it needs 
to be accounted for at all. Laud, it should be remembered, held 
the see of London when he began negotiations for the control of the 
churches abroad, though he was translated to Canterbury before 
he completed them. As primate, he had enough to do at home 
without undertaking the administration of church affairs abroad ; 
and in selecting another to perform these functions it was natural 
for several reasons that he should choose the Bishop of London. 
In the first place, London was the see which he himself had 
occupied during the transactions leading up to the issue of the 
order. 1 In the second place, William Juxon, his successor, was 
a man thoroughly in sympathy with his policy, he was, in fact, 
the primate's own nominee. Finally, London, as the great 
centre of trade with the continent, was more closely associated 
than any other city of the kingdom with foreign trading settle- 
ments ; indeed, evidence is not lacking to indicate that since the 

instructed, as they came to be after 1685, to sustain the jurisdiction of the 
Bishop of London. In one case, at least, the encouragement to support the 
established church was couched in very specific terms. For example, Article 1 
of the instructions issued to Sir William Berkeley in 1650, provided "that in 
the first place you be careful, Almighty God may be duly and daily served, 
according to the form of Religion established in the Church of England, 
both by yourself and all the people under your charge, which may draw down 
a Blessing upon all your Endeavors. . . . Suffer no Innovation in matters 
of Religion, and be careful to appoint sufficient and conformable ministers to 
each Congregation, that they may Catechise and Instruct them in the Ground 
and Principle of Religion" (Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 1-2). 

1 Laud became Archbishop of Canterbury in August ; but since William 
Juxon was not consecrated till October 3, 1633, the see was probably not alto- 
gether out of Laud's hands at the time of the issue of the order in council. 

2 



1 8 THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL. 

previous century its bishops had had more or less connection, 
with foreign affairs and foreign churches. 1 

Having considered the attempts to work out the Laudian 
policy in the Low Countries, so far as they affected the origin 
of the American jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, it should 
be beyond our province to follow the subject farther. It may be 
well to note, however, that the order in council was at once put 
into practical operation, as is shown by a letter of July 17, 
1634, from Archbishop Laud to the merchants at Delft, com- 
mending to them Mr. Beaumont, who had been chosen preacher 
by the consent of their Company. 2 Beaumont's commission,, 
issued July 17, 1634, instructed him "That he should punctu- 
ally keep and observe all the Orders of the Church of England^ 
as they are prescribed in the Canons and Rubricks of the 
Liturgy ; and that if any person shall shew himself refractory 
to that Ordinance of his majesty, he shall certifie the name of 
any such offender, and his offense to the Lord Bishop of Lon- 
don for the time being, who was to take order and give remedy 
accordingly." 3 

Leaving at this point the history of the jurisdiction of the 
Bishop of London in the Netherlands, let us turn our attention 
to the English colonies in America. Although there is no evi- 
dence, before the Restoration, of any act performed by the 
Bishop of London which would lead one to suspect that he 
had any diocesan authority in the colonies, and not the faintest 
trace of any theoretical recognition of his title there, there are, 
on the other hand, several instances of attempts by Laud to 
control the American branch of the Church of England in other 
ways. 

His first step in this direction was to secure the issue, by writ 
of privy seal, of a commission " erecting and establishing a board 

1 For example, Vaughan, who succeeded Bancroft as Bishop of London in 
1604, received from the French and Dutch ministers in his diocese a petition 
for protection and favor. In his reply he speaks of Edmund Grindal, Bishop 
of London from 1559 to 1570, as one of the "superintendents of your Churches " 
(Neal, Puritans, ii. 40, from Strype's Annals, iv. 390). 

2 Anderson, Colonial Church, i. 411. 

3 Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, 260. Anderson, Makower, and Collier also 
quote something of the correspondence relating to this subject. 



THE COMMISSION OF 1634. 1 9 

for the purpose of governing the colonies." 1 This board was 
to consist of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, the lord 
keeper of the great seal, the Archbishop of York, the high 
treasurer, the lord keeper of the privy seal, and seven other 
members of the privy council. These, or any five of them, were 
given " power for the rule and protection of the colonies" 
in both political and civil affairs and (in consultation with two 
or three suffragan bishops, who were to be called in for the 
purpose) in ecclesiastical affairs also. To insure the enforce- 
ment of the laws and ordinances made in pursuance of their 
authority, the commissioners might inflict fitting punishments. 
They might also require from every colonial governor, and 
magistrate, ecclesiastical or civil, an account of his office, and I 
might, with the royal assent, remove or otherwise punish him I 
for causes which should seem to them just and reasonable. 
Furthermore, they were authorized, in consultation with the. 
Archbishop of Canterbury and some of his suffragans, to 
establish courts and tribunals as well ecclesiastical as civil, 
forms of judicature, and modes of proceeding, and to decide what 
offences should appertain to the ecclesiastical and what to the 
civil administrations, and to act as a court of appeal for settling 
any disputes which might arise in the colonies. They had also 
the right to provide for the endowment of churches by means 
of tithes and other sources of revenue, and to revoke such 

1 For the complete text of this commission in Latin, and for a draft in 
English, see Baldwin (American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, New Series, 
xiii. 213 ff.). In the body of his article (pp. 182-187) Judge Baldwin dis- 
cusses this and the second commission, of April 10, 1636. A rather curious 
English translation of the Latin original may be found in an appendix to 
Bradford's Plymouth Plantation (Massachusetts Historical Society, Collec- 
tions, 4th Series, iii. 456). For references to other translations, see Baldwin 
as above, 182, note 2, and an editorial note in Bradford, Appendix, 456. 
The Latin edition of the second commission is in Pownall, Administration of 
the British Colonies, ii. 155 ff., from whom it is copied by Hazard, State 
Papers, 344 ff., with the date erroneously given as 1634. The supposition of 
the editor of Bradford that the Latin version in Pownall is the original, from 
which Bradford's is a translation, is incorrect. Pownall's version is dated 
April 10, and names Juxon as high treasurer, an office which he did not begin 
to hold till 1635. In the Bradford edition the Earl of Portland, who died in 
1635, is mentioned as high treasurer. 



20 THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL. 

charters as seemed to infringe upon the royal prerogative. 
In short, they had supreme control over every branch of colonial 
affairs, ecclesiastical and civil. 

Two years later, April 10, 1636, a second commission was 
issued to Archbishop Laud and others for the government of 
all persons within the colonies and plantations beyond the seas, 
according to the constitutions there, with power to constitute 
courts as well ecclesiastical as civil, for determining causes. 1 

During these years the strenuous attempts of the English 
government to execute the new Stuart-Laudian policy of en- 
forcing unity and conformity caused an access of emigration, 
particularly to New England. Notwithstanding the measures 
which Laud had undertaken for the supervision and regulation 
of the ecclesiastical affairs in the new world, he thought that 
he could maintain a firmer check on the spread of dangerous 
opinions by keeping their suspected adherents at home. Pro- 
ceeding on this assumption, he induced Charles I. to issue, 
April 30, 1637, tne following proclamation: "The King, being 
informed that great numbers of his subjects are yearly trans- 
ported into New England, with their families and whole estates, 
that they might be out of reach of ecclesiastical authority, his 
Majesty, therefore, commands that his officers of the several 
ports should suffer none to pass without license from the com- 
missioners of the several ports, and a testimonial from their 
ministers, of their conformity to the order and discipline of 
their church." 2 

On the first of May the king issued a second proclamation, 
extending the restriction to the clergy and vesting the right to 
issue testimonials in the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 
Bishop of London. "Whereas it is observed," reads this 
proclamation, "that such as are not conformable to the dis- 

1 The Latin form of this commission may be found in Pownall, from whom 
it was copied by Hazard (see above, p. 19, note 1). The first and second 
commissions seem to be substantially the same, except that in the second the 
name of Juxon, the new high treasurer, is substituted for that of the Earl of 
Portland, deceased. Cf. Sainsbury, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 
1574-1660, p. 232. 

2 Rush worth, Historical Collections, ii. 409-410, quoted by Vaughan, Stuart 
Memorials, i. 487-488. 



A BISHOP DESIGNED FOR NEW ENGLAND. 21 

cipline and ceremonies of the Church, do frequently transport 
themselves to the plantations, where they take liberty to nour- 
ish their factions and schismatical humours, to the hindrance 
of the good conformity and unity of the Church, we, therefore, 
do expressly command you, in his Majesty's name, to surfer no 
clergyman to transport himself without a testimonial from the 
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London." * 

Trusting to this means to stop the growth of the dissenting 
element from without, Laud's next step was to devise a way 
to gain a hold on those who had already got beyond his reach. 
To this end he made arrangements, in 1638, to send a bishop 
to New England ; but, owing to the sudden outbreak of troubles 
in Scotland, he was forced to abandon the design. 2 

1 Rushworth, Historical Collections, as above. The appearance of the Bishop 
of London's name in this connection is interesting, but it furnishes no proof 
that he was regarded as diocesan of the colonies at this time. 

2 Heylyn's account of the affair gives us a most striking picture of the way 
in which the New Englanders were regarded by a contemporary royalist and 
high-churchman : " Not much took notice of at the first," he says, " when they 
were few in Numbers, and inconsiderable for their Power : but growing up so 
fast both in Strength and multitude, they began to carry a face of danger. 
For how unsafe must it be thought both to Church and State, to suffer such a 
Constant Recepticle of discontented, dangerous, and schismatical Persons, to 
grow up so fast ; from whence, as from the Bowels of the Trojan Horse, so many 
Incendiaries might break out to inflame the Nation ? New England, like the 
Spleen in the Natural Body, by drawing to it so many sullen, sad, and offen- 
sive Humours, was not unuseful and unserviceable to the General Health : But 
when the Spleen is grown once too full, and emptieth itself into the Stomach, 
it both corrupts the Blood, and disturbs the Head, and leaves the whole man 
wearisome to himself and others. And therefore to prevent such mischiefs as 
might thence ensue, it was under the Consultation of the chief Physicians, who 
take especial care of the Churches Health, to send a Bishop over to them, for 
their better Government, and back him with some Forces to compel, if he were 
not otherwise able to persuade Obedience. But this Design was strangled in 
the first Conception, by the violent breakings out of the Troubles in Scotland' 1 '' 
(Cyprianus Anglicus, 347). Compare with this an account from the oppo- 
site standpoint : " In the reign of Charles I. . . . Laud attempted to subjugate 
the Colonies, then in their infancy ; he was not content with striving to cramp 
their trade by foolish proclamations [see Rush worth, Historical Collectio?is, i. 
718] : but to complete their ruin, was upon the point of sending them a bishop 
[see Heylyn, as quoted above], with a military force to back his authority . . ." 
(Pennsylvania Chronicle, 7 July, 1768). This quotation, taken from a contro- 



22 THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL. 

The few instances given in this chapter will suffice, it is 
hoped, to convey some idea of the plan, pursued during the 
decade 1630-1640, when Charles I. and Laud guided the policy 
of the English church and state, of extending the Anglican eccle- 
siastical system in the English colonies throughout the world, 
as well as some idea of the methods employed for the control 
of the colonies. Naturally, the Archbishop of Canterbury, by 
virtue of his office as primate and metropolitan, was the nom- 
inal head of the whole English ecclesiastical system both at 
home and abroad ; but, for purposes of more immediate super- 
vision, he made various arrangements for the control of the 
colonial churches. Thus, he granted to the Bishop of London 
jurisdiction over the churches of the Merchant Adventurers 
Company at Delft and Hamburg ; he set up a commission for 
regulating the ecclesiastical affairs of the American colonies ; 
and he made an attempt to establish a bishop in New England 
to take charge of the churches there. 

But a crisis in the course of English history brought the 
work thus begun to a standstill. Following the rising of the 
Scots, came the meetings of the Short and the Long Parliament 
in quick succession, and in the rush of events which ensued 
the king and his archbishop were allowed no time for the con- 
sideration of colonial church affairs. The execution of Laud 
took place in 1645, and that of Charles followed in 1649. 
Then came the Commonwealth and the Protectorate, a gov- 
ernment hostile, not only to the extension, but even to the 
existence, of the episcopal establishment. These facts will 
serve to explain why there are no records of any official con- 
nection between the Anglican episcopate and the colonies 
during the period 1638-1663. With Laud's death his vast 
plan passed out of consideration, leaving no trace behind save a 
shadowy tradition, which came to serve as a precedent to the 
succeeding bishops of London for the exercise of their colonial 
authority. 

Soon after the Restoration the episcopal hand begins to 

versial article, written at the time when the agitation against the establishment 
of American bishops was at its height, will serve to show that the attempts of 
Laud were regarded with no small anxiety by our colonial forefathers. 



THE PROTECTORATE AND THE RESTORATION. 23 

appear again in the management of colonial concerns, and one 
of the names most frequently noticed in connection with the 
movement is that of the Bishop of London. For example, 
when an order was passed June 24, 1663, to enforce the Brit- 
ish Navigation laws in the plantations, his Lordship was one of 
the privy counsellors assembled at Whitehall for the considera- 
tion of colonial affairs. 1 This is only one of six cases occurring 
at this time in which his name is mentioned in the list of those 
members of the Privy Council who served on committees on 
colonial questions. To cite one more specific instance : the 
first connection of the Bishop of London with the Carolinas is 
his presence, November 25, 1664, with that of the Archbishop 
of Canterbury, at a meeting of this committee, on business 
relating to the administration of colonial detail. 2 

As time went on, indications began to appear that the Bishop 
of London was regarded as having the peculiar charge of the 
concerns of the Church of England in the American colonies. 
Perhaps the best illustration which can be given is an extract 
from a letter, dated July 18, 1666, from Thomas Ludwell, 
secretary of Virginia, to Secretary Lord Arlington, enclosing a 
description of the province. In that part of his letter which is 
devoted to ecclesiastical affairs, he says that the clergy "are 
subject to the See of London and have no superior clergyman 
among them . . ." ; he "wishes my Lord of London and other 
great clergymen would take them a little more into their care 
for the better supply of ministers." 3 Another example of a 

1 New York Documents, iii. 44. 

2 North Carolina Records, i. 73-74. The following example, also, may not 
be without significance. In 1661, an anonymous writer, who signed himself 
" R. G.," sent to Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London, an account of the Church 
of England in Virginia, in which he lamented the low state into which it had 
fallen, and suggested measures of reform. The full title of the work is 
Virginia's Cure, or an Advisive Narrative concerning Virginia, discovering 
tJ\e True Ground of the Churches Unhappiness, and the only True Remedy. As 
it was presented to the Right Reverend Father in God, Guilbert Lord Bishop 
of London, by R. G. September 2, 1661. This pamphlet will be considered 
somewhat more in detail in a following chapter. 

3 Sainsbury, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West 
Indies, 1 661 -1668, p. 400. 



24 THE BEGINNINGS OF EPISCOPAL CONTROL. 

recognition of the Bishop of London's special interest in the 
plantations occurred a few years later. On August 2, 1676, 
the Archbishop of Canterbury enclosed in a letter to Bishop 
Compton a complaint addressed to him by one John Yeo, setting 
forth the " Deplorable Condition of Maryland for want of an 
Established Ministry." The archbishop makes the following 
comment: "Received the enclosed from a person altogether 
unknown. The design of the writer seems very honest and so 
laudable that I conceive it concerns us by all means to promote 
it. If his Lordship will remember it when Lord Baltimore's 
affair is considered at the Council Table, [his grace] makes no 
question but there may be a convenient opportunity to obtain 
some settled revenue for the ministry of that place as well as 
the other plantations. When that is once done it will be no 
difficult matter for us to supply them with those of competent 
abilities both regular and conformable." 1 Whether his Lord- 
ship ever brought the matter before the Council does not appear. 
Certainly at the time of the Restoration the opinion was more 
or less prevalent that the charge of colonial ecclesiastical affairs 
belonged to the Bishop of London; and, according to the 
scattered instances related above, he seems even thus early to 
have taken some share in the administration of such matters. 
There was, however, apparently no effort to place the jurisdic- 
tion on a legal footing, or to exercise it in anything like a 
systematic and efficacious manner, until the accession of Bishop 
Compton, whose activity in this direction will be considered in 

!the next chapter. 
The only permanent results, then, of the period to which this 
chapter has been mainly devoted were the establishment of the 
Church of England in Virginia, 2 and the fixing of the precedent 
that the diocesan control of the English plantations in North 
America should be vested in the Bishop of London. 

1 Sainsbury, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, A?nerica and West 
Indies, 1 675-1 676, p. 435. 

2 This was brought about by royal ordinance in 1606, confirmed by enact- 
ment of the Virginia assembly, and reaffirmed — in one case, at least, specifi- 
cally — in the instructions to the early governors. See above, pp. 9, 11, 16, 
note 3. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE POLICY AND WORK OF BISHOP COMPTON, 1675-1714. 

No sooner was Henry Compton translated to the see of 
London, in December, 1675, 2 than he interested himself in the 
affairs of the colonies. In a letter dated March, 1676, he writes : 
" As the care of your churches, with the rest of the plantations, 
lies upon me as your diocesan, so to discharge that trust, I shall 
omit no occasions of promoting their good and interest." 2 Re- 
ports from several quarters indicate that in some of the colonies 
the need of such episcopal guidance and assistance was felt. 
For example, Sir Thomas Lynch, in his account of the state of 
the church in Jamaica, written in May, 1675, had suggested that 
"if the king would affix to that island two considerable preb- 
endaries as of Eton, Westminster, Lincoln, etc., such person, 
by the Bishop of London's direction, might have a superintend- 
ence of Church affairs, keep people in their duty, convert 
sectaries, and suppress atheism and irreligion, which the people 
there much incline to." 3 Evidently, something would now be 
done, if the united efforts of the new bishop and divers earnest 
men abroad could bring it to pass. 

Compton's first important step was to find out what legal 
basis he possessed for the authority over the colonies which 
tradition attributed to his see. To that end, he instituted the 
inquiry which has already been noticed in another connection. 4 
Finding nothing to warrant the exercise of any formal jurisdic- 

1 Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesice Anglicance, ii. 304 ; New York Documents ', vii. 
373, editor's note. 

2 Wilberforce, Protestant Episcopal Church, 107, citing Fulham MSS. The 
name of his correspondent is not given. 

3 Endorsed, " Sir Thos. Lynch, his acct. about the Church in Jamaica, 
May, 1675" {Colonial Papers, Vol. 34, No. 83). See also Sainsbury, Cal- 
endar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, 1 675-1 676, 
pp. 237-238. For an earlier instance, see above, p. 22. 

5, note 3. 



26 THE WORK OF BISHOP COMPTON. 

tion on his part, and at the same time realizing the necessity of 
some sort of episcopal supervision over the ministers and churches 
beyond the seas, he induced the government to insert the follow- 
ing provisions in the instructions issued to colonial governors 
after this time : " That God be duly served, The Book of Com- 
mon Prayer as is now established, read each Sunday and Holy 
Day, and the Blessed Sacrament administered according to the 
rules of the Church of England. . . . And our will and pleasure 
is that no Minister be preferr'd by you, to any Ecclesiastical 
Benefice in that Our Colony without a Certificate from the Lord 
Bp. of London, of his being cofiformable to the Doctrine of the 
Church of England." 1 It will be noticed that the powers thus 
conferred upon the Bishop of London were of a purely minis- 
terial nature. 

The practical condition of things was this : first, the status 
of the Church of England in the colonies was upon an extremely 
insecure footing ; and, secondly, the Bishop of London and a 
few ardent churchmen resident beyond the seas desired to 
remedy the matter. The truth of these statements is evident 
both from the complaints made by some of the colonists to him 
whom they regarded as their diocesan, and from the latter's 
attempts to bring these complaints before the council. The 
following incident will serve as an illustrative example. At 
a meeting of a committee of the Lords of Trade and Plantations 
at Whitehall, July 17, 1677, Bishop Compton presented a memo- 
rial enumerating nine abuses which had crept into the govern- 
ment of the church in the plantations, 2 — including offences 
against ecclesiastical law, lax morality, and the like. Of these 
nine enumerated abuses, it will be necessary to repeat at length 
only the first and the seventh. The former asserts, " That the 
Kings Right of Patronage & presenting to all benefices and 
Cures of Souls which happen to be void in any of the Plantations 

1 These clauses first appear in the instructions to Governor Culpeper of 
Virginia, Articles 15 and 16, New York Documents, viii. 362. 

2 " A Memorial of what abuses are crept into the Churches of the Planta- 
tions : " New York Doctiments, iii. 253 ; North Carolina Records, i. 233-234; 
Sainsbury, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West 
Indies, 1677-1680, pp. 117-118. 



COMPTOAT'S MEMORIAL OF 1677. 27 

is not duely asserted & practised by the several Governors in so 
much as some parishes are kept vacant where a lawfull minister 
may be had, and some persons are commissionated to exercise 
the ministerial function without Orders both in Virginia, Barba- 
dos, & other places." The latter declares " That the vestries 
there [in Virginia] pretend an Authority to be intrusted with 
the sole management of Church Affaires, & to exercise an arbi- 
trary power over the Ministers themselves." The other sub- 
jects of complaint were as follows : the fact that the people 
converted the profits of the vacant parishes to their own uses ; 
the precarious tenure and small compensation of the ministers ; 
the want of a settled maintenance for ministers in Maryland ; the 
fact that in Virginia no places were allotted for the burial of the 
dead ; the power of the vestries over their ministers ; the failure 
to enforce the marriage laws in Virginia ; the law requiring all 
Church of England ministers to have their orders from some 
bishop in England ; and the fact that no care was taken for the 
passage and accommodation of such ministers as were sent 
over, except in the case of those sent to Virginia. 

The Bishop's memorial seems to have had some weight with 
their lordships ; for, after considering the enumerated grievances 
in order, they recommended that the governors be directed to 
see that each was remedied. Moreover, it was noted in the 
Council's journal of November 10, that, in relation to the law 
for the maintenance of the ministry, their lordships thought all 
the particulars in the memorial very necessary to be observed, 
and were of opinion that they ought to make part of the gov- 
ernor's instructions. 1 Again, January 14, 1680, on a motion 
of Compton concerning the " state of the Church in His Maj- 
esty's Plantations," the king issued an order in council direct- 
ing " that the Lords of Trade and Plantations signify His 
Majesty's pleasure unto His respective Governors in America, 
that every Minister within their government be one of the 
Vestry in his respective parish, and that no vestry be held with- 
out him except in case of sickness, or that after notice of a 
vestry summoned he absent himself." 2 

1 Sainsbury, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West 
Indies, 1 677-1 680, p. 176. 2 Ibid. 469. 



28 THE WORK OF COMPTON. 

It must be always kept in mind that at this time Virginia was 
the only American colony where the Church of England had 
anything like a firm foothold. From New England, for example, 
comes the following testimony in the words of Governor Andros : 
" I have not heard of any Church or Assembly according to ye 
Church of England in any [of] the Collonyes ; their Ecclesiasti- 
call government is as in their law bookes and practice most or 
wholly independant." 1 This statement is hardly surprising in 
view of the fact that in 1680 there was only one Episcopal 

\ clergyman in New England, Father Jordan of Portsmouth. 2 
Indeed, in 1679, when several of the inhabitants of the town 
of Boston petitioned Compton for a minister, there appear to 
have been only four Church of England clergymen in North 
America outside of Virginia and Maryland. 3 In the former 
colony there were forty parishes and something like twenty 

: clergymen, and in the latter twenty-six parishes, about one-half 

; of which were supplied with ministers. 4 

This paucity of means for supplying the spiritual needs of 
Episcopalians dwelling outside of Maryland and Virginia opened 
Compton's eyes, and caused him to set about remedying the 
defect. To this end he induced King Charles to allow the New 
England church a building; whereupon, in 1689, the society 
formed in accordance with the royal sanction built King's 
Chapel, and King William began the practice, which was con- 
tinued till the Revolution, of sending an annual bounty of ,£100 
for the support of assistant ministers. 5 

The energetic Compton also obtained from Charles II. a 
bounty of ,£20 for each minister and schoolmaster taking pas- 
sage to the West Indies, and caused instructions to be given to 
the respective governors, to permit no man to serve in the cure 
of souls, or to teach school, unless licensed by the Bishop of 

1 Report, dated April 9, 1678, in answer to inquiries of the Council of Trade 
concerning the plantations of New England, New York Documents, iii. 264. 

2 McConnell, American Episcopal Church, 41. 

3 Account of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1706), 
12 ; David Humphreys, Historical Account of the Society, etc., 8. 

4 Humphreys, Historical Account, 41-42. 

6 Account of the Society, etc., 11 ; Humphreys, Historical Account, 7. 



THE CHURCH IN THE COLONIES. 29 

London. This provision for sending out regular clergymen and 
schoolmasters under the certificate of the Bishop of London did 
much for the Church of England in America, both in the West 
Indies and in the colonies on the mainland where it came to 
be applied. 1 Apparently Sir Thomas Lynch of Jamaica was the 
first among the West Indian governors to have a clause inserted 
in his instructions, relating to the ministerial supervision of the 
Bishop of London. It is worded precisely the same as that 
issued to Culpeper two years before, 2 with the following addi- 
tional direction : " And you are to enquire whether any Min- 
ister preaches or administers the Sacrament without being in 
due Orders ; whereof you are to give notice to the Bp. of 
London." In regard to this clause, a later bishop, Thomas 
Sherlock, who seemed always to be on the lookout for a chance 
to find a limitation in the scope of any grant of power to the 
Bishop of London, remarks : " What the Bp. of London could 
do upon such notice, does not appear. The Plantations being 
no part of his Diocese, nor had he any authority to act there." 3 
Compton's next step was to obtain a more effective control 
over the clergy and the laity. 4 In view of the extremely inse- 
cure position of the Church of England in the colonies, he par- 
ticularly needed more power to secure himself against unworthy 
ministers. Consequently, soon after the accession of James II. 
he sent a letter April 15, 1685, to Blathwaite, secretary to the 
Lords of Trade and Plantations, embodying the following prop- 
ositions : " That he [the Bishop of London] may have all 
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the West Indies, excepting the 
disposal of parishes, licences for Marriage, & c , Probate of 
Wills," and " That no Schoolmaster coming from England, 

1 Account of the Society, etc., 12 ; Humphreys, Historical Account, 8-9. 

2 See above, p. 26. Lynch's instructions are dated 1681 {New York Docu- 
ments, vii. 362). 

3 Sherlock's "Report," New York Documents, vii. 362). 

4 Compare a contemporary writer : " And for the better ordering of them, 
his Lordship prevailed with the King, to devolve all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction 
in those Parts upon him and his Successors, except what concern'd Inductions, 
Marriages, Probate of Wills and Administrations, which was continued by the 
Governors as profitable Branches of their Revenue" {Account of the Society, 
etc., 12-13). 



30 THE WORK OF COMPTON. 

be received without Licence from His Lordship, or from other 
His Majesty's Plantations without they take the Governor's 
licence." 2 

The lords, having heard the letter, agreed to consider its 
proposals further when the bishop should be present. Accord- 
ingly, on April 27, when Compton happened to be in attend- 
ance, the letter was again read, and the lords agreed to move 
the king to insert the articles in the governors' instructions. As 
a result of this resolution, the following clauses were added to 
the instructions of Sir Philip Howard, governor of Jamaica, in 
a commission of the same year : 2 

"And to the end the ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the s d Bp. 
of London may take place in that our Island, as far as conven- 
iently may be, we do think it fit that yon give all countenance and 
encouragm* in the exercise of the same excepting only the Col- 
lating Benefices, granting licences for marriages, and probate of 
wills, which we have reserved to you' our Governor, and the 
Commander in chief for the time being. 

" And we do further direct that no schoolmaster be hencefor- 
ward permitted to come from England and to keep school within 
that our Island without the licence of the said Bishop." 2, 

Like instructions were afterward given to the governors of 
nearly all the royal provinces. Under the authority thus con- 
ferred, Bishops Compton, Robinson (and Gibson also for the 
first two or three years following his promotion to the see of 
London), 4 exercised ecclesiastical supervision over the colonies, 
except in matters relating to collations to benefices, licenses for 
marriages, and probate of wills, which, as we have seen, were 
reserved to the governors in their respective provinces. 5 An 
assertion made by some writers, that the authority granted to 
Compton and his successors was afterward confirmed by an 

1 New York Documents, vii. 362. 

2 The clause already inserted in the instructions to Culpeper and Lynch 
(see above, p. 29, and note 2, ibidJ) was naturally incorporated in these and 
subsequent instructions. 

3 New York Documents, vii. 363. 

4 Perceval, Apostolical Succession, Appendix, 109-12 1. 

5 For a full account, see New York Documents, vii. 363 ; Perry, American 
Episcopal Church, i. 154-155 ; Brodhead, New York, ii. 456-457. 



THE BASIS OF COMPTON'S AUTHORITY. 31 

order in council, 1 while not capable of direct proof, has evidence 
to support it. Though the original order is not to be found in 
the council books, yet, at about the time when it is said to have 
been issued, there is a blank left on the books for the insertion 
of something which was never inserted. The missing docu- 
ment, whatever it may be, is very likely among the papers of 
Mr. Blathwaite, who was then acting chief clerk of the council ; 
but where those papers are, or whether they are still extant, the 
present writer has not as yet been able to discover. In the 
opinion of Commissary Gordon of Barbadoes, it is very probable 
that such an order was issued. His reasons are as follows : in 
the first place, because at about that time an order in council 
was issued adding the Bishop of London to the body of Lords 
Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, all of whom were then 
members of the Privy Council ; secondly, because the clauses 
quoted above were inserted in governors' commissions and in- 
structions; 2 in the third place, because in a copy of a letter, dated 
September, 1685, from Bishop Compton to Lord Howard, gov- 
ernor of Virginia, the order is expressly mentioned, with the 
reasons for vesting the power in the bishop ; 3 and, finally, 
because there is the indirect evidence of two orders in council, 
dated October, 1686, one suspending the Bishop of London 
from his diocese and vesting the exercise of his authority in a 

1 Abbey, English Church and Bishops, i. 82 ; cited by McConnell, American 
Episcopal Church, 97. 

2 The commentator adds that the words "which we have reserved," etc., 
seem " to refer to something done before ; for every Reservation necessarily 
implies some previous Grant out of which the Reservation is made. 1 ' It is 
more likely, however, that the reservation is from the ordinary jurisdiction 
which the bishops of London exercised in England. 

3 " . . . I do most humbly thank your Lordship for the great care you have 
taken in setting the Church under your Government. There is a constant 
Order of Council remaining with Mr. Blaithwaite that no man shall continue 
in any Parish without Orders ; nor any to be received without a License under 
the hand of the Bishop of London for the time being, and that the Minister 
shall always be one of the vestry. This order was made four or five years 
since, and I can make no doubt, among others you have it in your instructions. 
This King has likewise made one lately that Except Licenses for marriages, 
Probat of Wills, and disposing of the Parishes, all other Ecclesiastical Juris- 
diction shall be in the Bishop of London' 1 (Fulkam MSS.). 



32 THE WORK OF COMPTON. 

board of commissioners, the other, 1 issued a week later, suspend- 
ing him, with the same formality, from his authority in the 
plantations and conferring it on the same commission. 2 Though 
these reasons do not conclusively prove that there was a stand- 
ing order in council, issued about 1685, vesting the ecclesiasti- 
cal jurisdiction of the colonies in the Bishop of London, they at 
least make it appear highly probable that there was such an 
order, even though no entry appears in the council books. 

Of course the temporary orders in council embodied in every 
governor's instructions had, while they continued, the force of 
standing orders ; but they lacked the advantage of stability. 
For instance, take the case just alluded to : Bishop Compton 
fell out with King James because of his opposition to the Test 
Act ; whereupon, on his refusal to suspend Dr. Sharpe for a 
sermon against popery, he was removed from the Privy Council, 
his see was put into commission, and his colonial authority was 
delegated to the Archbishop of Canterbury. 3 It was not long, 
however, before Archbishop Sancroft himself incurred the king's 
displeasure on account of his ecclesiastical opinions. For this 
reason the jurisdiction over the colonies was taken from his hands 
and transferred to the bishops of Durham, Rochester, and Peter- 

1 October 27, 1686: "Whereas His Majesty has thought fitt to appoint 
Commissioners for exercising the Episcopal Jurisdiction within the City and 
Diocese of London, His Majesty in Council does this Day Declare his pleasure 
that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Plantations shall be exercised by the 
said Commissioners ; and did order & it is hereby ordered that the R* Honble 
the Lords of the Commn for Trade & Plantations do prepare instructions 
for the several governors in the Plantations accordingly" {Fulham MSS.). 

2 For a discussion of the whole subject see a letter of November 3, 1725, 
from Commissary Gordon of Barbadoes to Bishop Gibson, in regard to his 
jurisdiction {Ibid. The letter is printed in Appendix A, No. iv.). 

3 See instructions to Governor Dongan of New York, issued May 29, 1686, 
in which, in the articles relating to religion (Articles 31-38), the words 
" Archbishop of Canterbury " are substituted for " Bishop of London " (A r ew 
York Documents, iii. 369-375). For details, see An Account of the whole 
Proceedings against Henry, Lord Bishop of London, before the Lord Chancellor 
and the other Ecclesiastical Commissioners (pamphlet, London, 1688) ; Life 
of Henry Compton (anonymous), 16-42 ; Foote, Annals of King^s Chapel, i. 
166-167. See also Brodhead, New York, ii. 455-456, who cites various other 
references. 



COMPTON APPOINTS COMMISSARIES. 33 

borough, who administered the see of London in commission dur- 
ing the suspension of Compton. With the change of dynasty 
which soon followed, Compton was restored to royal favor. 1 
He must at once have resumed his interest in colonial con- 
cerns ; for, in an ordinance of February 16, 1689, by which 
King William nominated twelve great officers of state, or any 
three of them, to constitute a " Committee of the Privy Council 
for Trade and Foreign Plantations," the Bishop of London is 
the only ecclesiastic on the list. 2 In the instructions to Henry 
Sloughter, January 31, 1689, Compton's name again appears as 
diocesan. 3 

Being here concerned only with the basis and scope of the 
Bishop of London's jurisdiction after the Restoration, we must 
reserve for another place a consideration of the relations be- 
tween Compton and the particular colonies. However, some 
of the more general evidences of his activity may be noted 
here. In 1671 there were hardly more than thirty Church 
of England clergymen in Virginia and Maryland, and less than 
forty in the whole country. By the year 1700 the number 
had increased to nearly sixty, of whom twenty exercised their 
functions outside the two great Episcopal centres. 4 And this 
was in the days before the foundation of the Society for Propa- 
gating the Gospel, by whose efforts so many clergymen were 
sent to America. 5 

Compton also instituted the practice of appointing commis- 
saries, who from this time until the middle of the eighteenth 
century continued to exercise delegated authority in the colo- 

1 Brodhead, New York, ii. 456; Perry, A?nerican Episcopal Church, i. 154- 

155- 

2 New York Documents, iii., Introduction, xiv. ; Life of Henry Compton 
(anonymous), 43. 

3 New York Documents, iii. 685-691. 

4 McConnell, Atnerican Episcopal Church, 87. Tiffany, however, says that 
at the beginning of the eighteenth century there were six outside Virginia and 
Maryland, and about fifty including the clergymen of these two colonies. 

5 In 1725 this Society had thirty-six missionaries in America, in 1743 sixty- 
seven, in 1750 seventy, and at the beginning of the Revolution over one hun- 
dred. See Abbey, English Church and Bishops, i. 348 ; Caswall, Afnerican 
Church. 68. 



34 THE WORK OF COMPTOJV. 

nies. 1 The first commissary to receive an appointment was the 
Reverend James Blair, who was sent to Virginia in 1689; 2 the 
second was the Reverend Thomas Bray, sent in 1695 to inquire 
into the state of the colonial church as a whole. It was due to 
the influence of Dr. Bray's pamphlet, A Memorial, representing 
the State of Religion in the Continent of North America, that the 
Society for Propagating the Gospel was founded. Since this 
society contributed more than any other single organization 
toward fostering the growth of the Church of England in 
America, perhaps a few words concerning its origin and aims 
will not be out of place. 

Not only did the enthusiasm of Compton rouse the English 
government to the need of doing something to strengthen the 
Episcopal church abroad, but various indications show that his 
efforts among private individuals were equally successful. For 
example, Sir Leoline Jenkyns, in his will (proved November 9, 
1685), provided for the establishment of two fellowships at Jesus 
College, Oxford, on condition that the holders take holy orders 
and go to sea when summoned by the Lord High Admiral, 
" and in case there be no Use of their Service at Sea, to be 
called by the Lord Bishop of London, to go out into any of His 
Majesty's Foreign Plantations, there to take upon them the Cure 
of Souls, and exercise their Ministerial Function." 3 This meant 
a great deal at a time when there were, with one or two excep- 
tions, no Church of England ministers in Pennsylvania, the 
Jerseys, New York, or New England ; 4 for the earliest Episco- 
pal churches in Massachusetts and Rhode Island had not yet 
been built, and seven years were to elapse before the church 
secured its partial establishment in New York. 5 

1 In one colony, at least, there were commissaries up to the Revolution. 
In the others, however, few if any appointments were made after the time of 
Gibson. 

2 See above, p. 3, note 2. 

3 Account of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1706). 

4 There was a Church of England chaplain in the fort at New York, and, as 
we have seen, one clergyman at Portsmouth, New Hampshire (above, p. 28). 

5 In 1693, owing to the efforts of Governor Fletcher, clergymen were settled 
in three or four New York counties, each supported by a grant of from ^40 to 
pf>o a year. 



THE FOUNDATION OF THE SOCIETY. 35 

While isolated efforts such as this were an encouraging sign 
of a laudable missionary zeal, it was evident, nevertheless, that, 
if effective results were to be secured, they would have to be 
supplemented by an organized movement. Realizing this fact, 
Archbishop Tennison and Bishop Compton applied to the 
king to charter a missionary society; and as a result of their 
efforts the " Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign 
Parts " was incorporated by royal charter under the great seal 
on June 16, 1701. 1 All the bishops of the realm were to can- 
vass for such clergymen as were willing to go out as mission- 
aries ; those secured for the purpose were to report their names 
to the secretary of the Society, who, after consultation with the 
Bishop of London, was to decide to what places they should be 
sent. 2 Among other things it was provided " that before their 
departure, they should wait upon his Grace the Archbishop of 
Canterbury, their Metropolitan, and the Lord Bishop of London, 
their Diocesan, to receive their Paternal Benediction and In- 
structions." 3 They were further required to keep up a constant 
and regular correspondence with the secretary ; to send, every 
six months, a statement of the condition of their respective par- 
ishes ; and to communicate what was done at the meetings of 
the clergy, and "whatsoever else may concern the Society." 4 

From this time the Society continued, on the whole, to be a 
refining and elevating force, striving to devote itself wholly to 
spiritual concerns, rarely meddling with politics as such, and 
apparently not desiring to meddle with them. Thus, when the 
" Church Act " of South Carolina arrived in England for con- 
firmation, November 4, 1704, the Society, at a meeting held in 
St. Paul's, declared that by the act in question " the ministers 
of South Carolina will be subjected too much to the pleasure of 
the people, and therefore they agree to recommend this matter 
to the Wisdom of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the 
Lord Bishop of London to take such care herein as they shall 

1 Account of the Society, etc., 14 ff. For the text of the Society's charter, 
see its Collection of Papers (17 15), 1-13. 

2 Account of the Society, etc., 14. 

3 Ibid. 19. 
* Ibid. 26. 



$6 THE WORK OF COMPTOtf. 

think proper." x In the interim, until a decision should be 
reached, it declined to send any more ministers to the Caro- 
linas. As it did not wish to rule the people, so it did not wish 
the people to rule the Society or its ministers ; it sought only 
sufficient independence for the free scope of its missionary activ- 
ity, and wished to leave all other matters to its civil and ecclesi- 
astical superiors — the king, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and 
the Bishop of London. This was its policy, or rather its ideal. 

Unfortunately this ideal was not always fully realized; for 
no sooner was the Society established on a firm foundation 
than it began to direct its efforts toward substituting a control 
by bishops resident in the colonies for the jurisdiction of the 
Bishop of London. However innocent this intention may have 
been, the Anglican Episcopal organization was too closely in- 
terwoven with the English governmental system to make it pos- 
sible to keep the matter within the spiritual field. Moreover, 
the Independent congregations in America knew the Church of 
England bishop only as an oppressive tyrant, backed by the 
strong arm of the civil power. For these reasons, the attempt 
of the Society to secure an American episcopate involved not 
only itself but the whole colonial church in a series of political 
contests, the outcome of which marked the first great crisis in 
American history. Just how this crisis came about will be shown 
in a later chapter. 

At this point it may be of interest to consider a few typical 
cases of the activity of Compton and of his successor, Robinson. 
A striking instance of Compton's watchful care over the church 
beyond the seas may be found in a clause in the Pennsyl- 
vania charter, which makes an extremely liberal provision for 
such Episcopalians as may wish to found a church or churches 
in the colony. 2 The insertion of this provision was due to the 

1 Account of the Society, etc., 75-79. 

2 Extract from the grant of Pennsylvania, March 4, 1680-1681 : "And Our 
further pleasure is, and wee doe hereby, for us, our heirs and Successors, 
charge and require, that if any of the inhabitants of the said Province, to the 
number of Twenty, shall at any time hereafter be desirous, and shall by any 
writeing, or by any person deputed for them, signify such their desire to the 
Bishop of London that any preacher or preachers, to be approved of by the 
said Bishops, may be sent unto them for their instruction, that then such 



THE CHURCH IN PENNSYLVANIA. 37 

bishop's efforts. At a meeting of the Lords of the Committee 
of the Privy Council for the affairs of Trade and Plantations, 
held at Whitehall January 22, 1680, to consider the draft of the 
patent constituting William Penn absolute proprietary of the 
tract of land later known as Pennsylvania, he presented a paper 
desiring " that Mr. Penn be obliged, by his patent, to admit a 
chaplain, of his Lordship's appointment, upon the request of 
any number of planters." As a result of this application, the 
Lords, in a meeting held on the 24th of February, passed the 
following resolution : "The Lord Bishop of London is desired to 
prepare a draught of a law to be passed in this country, for the 
settling of the Protestant religion." * Thus, in consequence of 
Compton's efforts, the Church of England was at least insured 
of a definite recognition in the colony of Pennsylvania. 2 Penn 
seems to have been on a friendly footing with him, and on one 
occasion at least thankfully accepted and followed one of his 
suggestions. 3 

Occasionally during this period the Bishop of London was 
called upon to exercise his authority in a case of discipline. Per- 
haps the best example is that of the Reverend Francis Philips, 
curate of the Reverend Robert Jenney, rector of Christ Church, 

preacher or preachers shall and may be and reside within the said province, 
without any denial or molestation whatsoever " (Poore, Charters and Consti- 
tutions, ii. 1515). See also Perry, Historical Collections, ii. (Pennsylvania) 
5 ; Perry, A?nerican Episcopal Church, i. 224 ; Proud, Pennsylvania, i. 186. 

1 Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 224, note 1 ; Perry, Historical 
Collections, ii. (Pennsylvania) 497-498 ; Hazard, Register of Pennsylvania, i. 
269-270. 

2 Stille*, in his Address delivered on the two hundredth anniversary of 
Christ Church, Philadelphia, November 19, 1895, says (p. 8) that even the 
missionaries in Pennsylvania had the privileges of membership in the " Estab- 
lished Church of America," accountable only to the Bishop of London and 
his "Church Courts." One wonders what the "Established Church of 
America" was. "Church courts" is a rather formal name for the small 
powers of jurisdiction which the commissaries generally exercised ; moreover, 
the Society certainly claimed some accountability for its missionaries. 

3 In a letter dated Philadelphia, August 14, 1683, Penn says : " I have fol- 
lowed the Bishop of London's counsel, by buying and not taking away the 
natives' land ; with whom I have settled a very kind correspondence " (Proud, 
Pennsylvania, i. 274). See also Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 224, 
note 1. 



38 THE WORK OF COMPTON. 

Philadelphia. Early in the year 171 5, Philips, being accused of 
misdemeanors, was put into prison. On promising to behave 
himself he was released ; but no sooner did he regain his liberty 
than he raised a mob of his supporters and resumed his place, 
announcing that he would stay in it in spite of any orders of the 
Bishop of London to the contrary. On March 17 the clergy 
of Pennsylvania took occasion, in their congratulatory message 
to Robinson on his accession to the see of London, to review the 
case of Philips up to the point where he had defied the authority 
of his diocesan, and to pray for his removal. Philips's friends 
were equally active ; several of them, headed by Lieutenant Gov- 
ernor Gookin and including many prominent members of the 
vestry, drew up and signed a memorial to the Bishop of London 
in which they exonerated Philips from all blame and prayed for 
his continuance among them. Philips himself wrote to the sec- 
retary of the Society, beseeching him to interest the new bishop 
in his behalf. In this letter he denies all the charges against 
himself, as mere fabrications of his enemies. Of one of his chief 
accusers, he says, and appeals to Reverend Evan Evans, a prom- 
inent Pennsylvania clergyman, to support his statements : " It 
was his daily practice in the last reign in all companies to rail at 
the church and state ; and as to the canons — he has more than 
once in my hearing at a public meeting of the Vestry declared 
that they were of no force here, so that I take it for granted that 
though he is no member of the Vestry now, his next assertion 
will be that we are not under the cognizance of the Bishop of 
London 1 and consequently that the people may call or displace 
a minister after the independent mode when they please but 
this I believe he will scarcely be able to accomplish during my 
abode here." The next step in the controversy was an appeal 
from the wardens and vestry of the church in Philadelphia in 
behalf of Philips, who evidently had a large party behind him. 
Their argument for restoring the offending clergyman to his 
curacy is certainly a curious one. After assuring their Bishop 
of their recognition of his jurisdiction over the behavior of the 

1 The allusion to the Bishop of London has the appearance of being lugged 
in for the sake of currying favor, particularly in the face of the alleged defiant 
attitude which Philips had shown a short time before. 



THE CHURCH IN MARYLAND. 39 

clergy in all except criminal cases, they beg his Lordship to 
reinstate Philips because they do not want the decision of a 
Quaker court of judicature upon the conduct of a Church of 
England clergyman to prevail, for the reason that it may give 
justification for attempts upon his Lordship's prerogative in the 
future. But all these attempts of Lieutenant Governor Gookin, 
and of the wardens, vestry, and members of the Philadelphia 
church, proved unavailing. When Bishop Robinson finally de- 
cided against them, they submitted and gave up possession of 
the church. Although Philips went home to plead his cause in 
person, it does not appear that he was ever reinstated. 1 

In the proprietary colony of Maryland, although the Church 
of England was established there, the Bishop of London exer- 
cised very little authority except during the administration of 
a governor who happened to be friendly to his interests. This 
fact is well illustrated in the struggle over the appointment 
of a successor to Thomas Bray, the first commissary. 2 Soon 
after Bray's return from Maryland, finding that in all likelihood 
he would never be able to go there again, he resigned his 
office, and in August, 1 700, reminded his diocesan of the 
urgent necessity of sending over a successor. At once the 
question arose as to how means might be obtained for his 
support. In 1 694- 1 695 the governor and assembly had passed 
an act vesting the office of judge in testamentary causes in 
such ecclesiastical person as the Bishop of London for the 
time being should commissionate under him ; the income 
attached to the office was to be ^300. Although Bray had 
obtained the position, he had been deprived of the stipend by 
an intrigue. His constant aim was to strengthen the authority 
of the Church of England in the colony. Having failed in 
an effort to secure the appointment of a suffragan bishop, 



1 For the documentary evidence on the case, see Perry, Historical Collections, 
ii. (Pennsylvania) 81, 87-89, 90-93, 97-98. 

2 See an account of the whole matter by Bray himself, in "a Memorial 
giving a true and Just account of the affair of the Commissary of Maryland, 
with respect to which the New Governor, Coll Seymour, has made so great 
Complaints of his ill usage by me, 1 ' etc., 1705 (Perry, Historical Collections, iv. 
(Maryland) 57-63). 



40 THE WORK OF COMPTOAT. 

he now returned to the plan of governing by a commissary, 
who was, however, to be invested with the power of induction 
hitherto exercised by the governor. 1 He recommended as his 
successor in the commissarial office the Reverend Michael 
Huetson, Archdeacon of Armagh, a candidate who proved 
acceptable to the Bishop of London. To provide for his 
support, Bray proposed that the judgeship of testamentary 
causes be given to him. This proposal he justified on the fol- 
lowing grounds : " since the office of Judge in Testamentary 
Causes is an office of an Ecclesiastical nature ; an office that 
the Country have desired might be vested in an Ecclesiastical 
person, and more particularly in the Bishop of London's Com- 
missary for his support ; and since it is an office that He, the 
Governor, could not execute himself, being that appeals lie 
from that court to himself, as Chancellor, or at leastwise to 
himself in Council; an office, too, that must be bestowed on 
some one." The Bishop felt the force of Bray's reasoning, 
and, during a dinner held at Fulham, at which Bray, Huetson, 
and Colonel Seymour, the governor-elect, were all present, 
made the proposal to the new governor. Seymour not only 
refused to grant the request, but violently denounced the nego- 
tiations of Bray as underhanded, and slandered him, in this 
and many other particulars, not only to Bishop Compton but 
to the Archbishop of Canterbury as well. In a word, he be- 
trayed so curious a behavior that Bray hazarded the suspicion 
in his memorial that there must have been some fundamental 
ground for his opposition to a commissary. 2 However that 
may have been, Seymour gained his point, Huetson did not go 
to Maryland, and for many years the Bishop of London re- 
mained without an official representative in the colony. 

In the absence of a commissary, a plan was evolved by the 
assembly to establish a spiritual court made up of the governor 

1 Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, ii. (Maryland) 121 ff. Hawks regards 
this as a very effective scheme for giving to the commissary control over the 
admission of clergy for whose conduct he was responsible. But the fact that 
presentation remained with the governor was somewhat of a handicap. 

2 Possibly the fact that the new commissary was to have the power of induc- 
tion may account for Seymour's attitude. 



COMMISSARIAL AUTHORITY IN MARYLAND. 41 

and three laymen. This court was " to superintend the conduct 
of the clergy " and to take " cognizance of all cases of immoral- 
ity on the part of a clergyman, and of non-residence in his 
parish for thirty days at one time " ; its power was also to 
extend to the deprivation of livings and to suspension from the 
ministry. The bill passed both houses, but was not signed by 
the governor for want of instructions. Naturally, the scheme 
was opposed by the clergy, who wrote to their diocesan that 
" it would be establishing presbyterianism in the colony, upon 
the neck of the Church, and raise an effectual bar to the intro- 
duction of Episcopacy, which is generally wished for by the 
clergy of this province." 1 

Commissarial authority was resumed in Maryland soon after 
the accession of Governor Hart, a man most friendly to the 
interests of the Church of England in the province. In a 
letter written to the Bishop of London, September 6, 171 5, he 
recommended the appointment of two commissaries, if a suffra- 
gan could not be secured. 2 The nominees suggested by him 
were Christopher Wilkinson for the Eastern, and Jacob Hender- 
son for the Western Shore. The nominations were confirmed 
in the following year by the bishop, and the commissaries at 
once entered office. 3 In spite of the friendliness of the gov- 
ernor, however, they had a difficult time in the exercise of their 
functions; for the assembly and the people of the higher 
classes were extremely hostile to the established clergy and to 
the attempts to extend the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Lon- 
don. 4 " It is a sad truth," write the commissaries, " that we 
must declare that we have not one friend in the province, 
except our governor to make our application to; nor any 
access to, nor place, nor employ in the government, nor friend 
in the world that we know of, but your lordship to stand by us." 5 



1 Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, ii. (Maryland) 1 29-131. 

2 Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Maryland) 80-82. 

3 Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, ii. (Maryland) 150. 

4 See the correspondence between Bishop Robinson and his commissaries 
in Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Maryland), and in Fulham MSS., passim. 

5 Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, ii. (Maryland) 154. For the whole 
letter, see Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Maryland) 89-91. 



42 THE WORK OF COMPTON. 

The Bishop seems to have exercised his good offices with Lord 
Baltimore, who wrote to the commissaries, March 23, 1718, that 
he acknowledged the establishment and the authority of the 
Bishop of London, and would do all in his power to further 
the interests of the Church of England in Maryland. 1 

Failing in an attempt to get a bill through the assembly 
acknowledging the authority of the Bishop of London in the 
province, 2 Wilkinson sought from that body an authorization of 
his right to punish two clergymen accused of immorality, one 
of drinking and swearing, the other of an incestuous marriage. 
Owing to the political influence of the accused, and to the fear 
of setting a precedent, which prevailed among the independent 
elements in the colony, the proposal was defeated. 3 These two 
failures were a sore blow to the development of any ecclesiastical 
authority in Maryland ; and henceforth the commissaries found 
it harder than ever to exercise ecclesiastical discipline. An 
indication of their discouragement is seen in the fact that they 
found it no longer worth while to require church wardens to 
present offenders. 4 Even the indomitable Henderson, who was 
far more aggressive than his colleague Wilkinson, at length recog- 
nized the futility of attempting to exercise anything save an ad- 
visory and exhortatory control over the clergy under his charge. 5 

1 Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Maryland) 99. 

2 The bill passed the council and was supported by the governor. 

3 For an account of this affair, see Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, ii. 
(Maryland) 162; also two letters from Wilkinson to Bishop Robinson, dated 
respectively April 25 and May 26, 171 8, in Perry, Historical Collections, iv. 
(Maryland) 106-109. There seems to have been considerable discussion 
as to the relative limits of civil and ecclesiastical power. In the letter of 
April 25, for example, Wilkinson reports that it has been decided that, when 
the ecclesiastical punishment is not corporeal or pecuniary, temporal punish- 
ment may follow. He thus shows that the status of ecclesiastical punishment 
was at least recognized. 

4 Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, ii. (Maryland) 170. 

5 Henderson to Bishop Robinson, June 17, 1718 : "As there is no hopes of 
an Act of Assembly to support it [the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London], 
and your Lordship has been pleased to order me not to set up a Court in form, 
I have faithfully obeyed ever since the receipt of your Lordship^ Letter, and 
my only endeavours for the future shall be to keep a decorum amongst the 
Clergy" (Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Maryland) 1 09-1 12). 



COMMISSARY BLAIR IN VIRGINIA. 43 

Although in Maryland it was possible for a hostile governor 
to prevent the commissarial representative of the Bishop of 
London from taking up the duties of his office, in Virginia pre- 
cisely the reverse was true. Commissary Blair became involved 
in quarrels with two successive governors, Edmund Andros 
and Francis Nicholson, 1 concerning the extent of the ecclesias- 
tical functions intrusted to them as ordinaries and their methods 
of administering those functions ; and he was able eventually to 
procure the dismissal of Andros, and probably to contribute an 
important influence toward the recall of Nicholson. 2 

The departure of his enemies was not so clear a victory for 
Blair as he might have had reason to hope. The struggle had 
stirred up much feeling among the clergy, who were particu- 
larly annoyed by what they regarded as the commissary's exces- 
sive and uncalled-for meddling in their affairs ; nor were their 
diocesan's efforts to smooth matters over of much avail. 3 
Eventually quiet was restored, but only at the cost of great 
concessions on Blair's part. He was forced to resign himself 
to comparative inactivity, contenting himself, for the most part, 
with the exercise of the bare routine duties of his office. 

The extent of these duties can be best understood from a 
letter which he wrote, November 18, 1714, to Robinson, the 
new Bishop of London. Having acknowledged the receipt of 
his commission and thanked his Lordship for it, he expresses 
a hope that he may fulfil his duties in a manner satisfactory 
to his new diocesan. "But," he adds, "it is necessary that I 
acquaint your Lordship that this Country having a great aver- 
sion to spiritual courts, the late Lord Bishop of London directed 

1 Andros was governor from 1692 to 1698, Nicholson from 1698 to 1705. 

2 The history of the quarrels, particularly of that with Nicholson, is very 
complicated, and is much obscured by the violent recriminations of the respec- 
tive parties. The documents printed in Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Vir- 
ginia) offer an opportunity to one who cares to trace the contentions through 
their various ramifications. For a recent account, see Daniel Esten Motley, 
Life of Commissary James Blair, 43 ff., a work which only came to the author's 
hands after the present chapter was in type. 

3 The whole story of the relations between the Bishop of London, his com- 
missary, and the clergy of Virginia may be found in Perry, Historical Collec- 
tions, i. (Virginia) 144 ff. 



44 THE WORK OF COMPTON. 

me, to make use of the power granted me, in a like commission 
by him, chiefly to restrain the irregularities of the Clergy with- 
out meddling with the Laity, except our Virginia Laws & Govt 
should give countenance to a further exercise of the ecclesias- 
tical discipline, so that the Chief of my business has been, 
where I have heard of any complaints of the Clergy, first to try 
to reclaim them by monitory letters ; & when that would not do, 
I have had a publick visitation of their Church, and upon an 
open trial of the facts, have either acquitted or suspended the 
Minister as the case required. I have made in all my time but 
few examples of this Kind, but I find it necessary not to be too 
slack as on the other hand I am not suspected of too great 
severity, the great Scarcity of clergymen among us, obliges me 
of the two to incline rather to the methods of gentleness. My 
Lord, I inform your Lordship, truly of these things, that if you 
Judge it necessary to give any further directions, you may take 
measures accordingly." 1 From this account it is evident that 
the Virginia commissary, like his Maryland colleagues, at this 
time pretended to no coercive jurisdiction, but confined himself 
to mere supervision and admonition, with an occasional attempt 
at discipline. Indeed, the commissary often found it difficult 
to exercise even this small amount of oversight ; for it appears 
from an address of the clergy to Bishop Robinson, dated April, 
1 7 19, that, although visitations were attempted by the com- 
missary, he met with so many difficulties, from the refusal of 
the church wardens to take their oaths or to make presentments, 
as well as from the general aversion to anything like a spiritual 
court, that little could be done in that direction. 2 

In the opinion of a careful contemporaneous observer, the 
commissarial office was not, on the whole, a success. 3 The 
commentator suggests, as a remedy for the evils of his time, 

1 Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 1 30-1 31. 

2 See " Journal of the Proceedings of the Convention held at the College of 
William and Mary in the City of Williamsburgh, in April, 1719," Ibid. 199- 
217. 

3 " Which Office and Name has not appeared well-pleasing to the People 
and Clergy, for Reasons I can't account for ; neither has it obtained the Power 
and Good Effect as might have been expected" (Jones, Present State of 
Virginia, 99). 



A BISHOP SUGGESTED FOR VIRGINIA. 45 

the appointment of " a Person whose Office upon this Occasion 
should be somewhat uncommon, till a Bishop be established 
in those Parts ; 2 who might pave out a Way for the Introduc- 
tion of Mitres into the English America, so greatly wanting 
there. This Person," he continues, " should have Instructions 
and Powers for discharging such Parts of the Office, of a 
Bishop, of a Dean, and of an Arch-Deacon, as Necessity re- 
quires, and the Nature of those sacred Functions will permit ; " 
he should reside in some parish in Virginia, and be obliged to 
make a " Progress (for the People will not approve of a Visita- 
tion)" every spring and autumn in Virginia and North Caro- 
lina, "as his Discretion shall best direct him." He suggests a 
salary of .£100 a year for travelling expenses, which might be 
secured from the government out of the quitrents, as the com- 
missary's salary was obtained. " As for the Establishment of 
Episcopacy in Virginia, it would be of excellent Service, if 
Caution was taken not to transplant with it the corrupt Abuses 
of spiritual Courts, which the People dread almost as much as 
an Inquisition ; but these their Fears would soon be dissipated, 
when by blessed Experience they might feel the happy Influ- 
ence of that holy Order among them, free from the terrible 
Notions that Misrepresentations of regular Church Government 
have made them conceive." He conceives the salary to be one 
of the chief drawbacks to the establishment of an episcopacy, 
but thinks that a contribution toward it might be taken from 
the superior clergy and collegians of the universities, until the 
usefulness of a bishop had been proved by trial ; afterward 
some other means might be employed, as, for example, the 
appropriation of a tract of land. 2 Jones's scheme was never 
even considered by those in power ; but his observations are of 

1 This suggestion of a bishop for Virginia is the third I have met. The 
other is in a merely casual letter from " Mr. Nicholas Moreau to the Right 
Honorable the Lord Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, his Majesty's High 
Almoner," April 12, 1697. After a panegyric of Nicholson, the writer says : 
" An eminent bishop of the same character being sent over with him will make 
Hell tremble and settle the Church of England in those parts forever " (Perry, 
Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 29-32). 

2 Jones, Present State of Virginia, Appendix, Scheme ii., passim, particu- 
larly pp. 98-99, no. 



46 THE WORK OF COMPTON. 

interest as an instance of contemporary opinion on the existing 
ecclesiastical situation in Virginia. 

The attempts which culminated in the establishment of the 
Church of England in the Carolinas afford an interesting 
instance of the Bishop of London's influence with the English 
government. From both charters, as well as from the Funda- 
mental Constitutions, although these instruments specifically 
provided that toleration should be granted to all Christians, it 
is evident that the establishment was contemplated in the minds 
of the founders. The first step in the direction of an exclusive 
establishment was taken on May 6, 1704, when Governor 
Nathaniel Johnson procured the passage of a bill to exclude 
dissenters from the House of Representatives. Henceforth 
every man who hoped to become a member of the assembly 
would be obliged to take the oaths and subscribe to the declara- 
tions appointed by that body, to conform to the religion and 
worship of the Church of England, and to receive the sacra- 
ment according to the usages of that church. 1 This proceeding 
at once raised a protest in the colony, particularly from the 
members of Colleton County, who sent an agent, one John 
Ash, to England by way of Virginia. He had an interview 
with the Palatine, from whom, however, he obtained no satis- 
faction. He died in England soon after. 2 

Not content with the passage of the act mentioned above, 
Governor Johnson took the further step of instituting a high 
commission court, composed of twenty laymen, who should 
form a corporation for the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, 
with full power to remove ministers not only for immorality but 
also for imprudence, that is to say, for any prejudice which 

1 Alexander Hewit, South Carolina (Carroll, Historical Collections, i.), 147 ; 
Grimke, Laws of South Carolina, No. 224 (May 6, 1704). This act, which was 
on its face contrary to the charters and the Fundamental Constitutions, was 
carried in the South Carolina assembly by the close vote of 12 to n (Dalcho, 
Protestant Episcopal Church in South-Carolina, 53). Its purpose, according 
to a good authority, was not " religion's sake," but the sudden exclusion of the 
dissenters, most of whom were on the side of those who were seeking to make 
an inquiry into the illegal practices of the ruling party (Rivers, South Carolina, 
222 ; cf. Oldmixon, in Carroll, Historical Collections, ii. 431). 

2 Hewit, South Carolina (Carroll, Historical Collections, i.), 148-149. 



THE SOUTH CAROLINA CHURCH ACTS. 47 

might be taken against them. 1 Here, of course, was a direct 
encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, an 
argument of which the greatest possible use was made in the 
later complaints against the measure. In England the two 
acts, though opposed by John Archdale, were ratified by the 
requisite four proprietors, who further manifested their approval 
of the proceedings by sending Johnson a letter lauding him for 
his zeal in the service of the church. After the death of Ash, 
his papers came into the hands of the governor and council, 
who suppressed them. 2 

But the dissenters were still far from discouraged, so long as 
the acts remained unratified by the crown. To prevent this 
final step they sent Joseph Boone to England to argue their 
cause. He presented a memorial to the House of Lords in the 
name of his constituents, and the lords addressed the queen, 
who in turn referred the matter to the Commissioners of Trade 
and Plantations. Soon afterward the commissioners returned 
a report declaring that the assembly of Carolina had abused its 
powers, and recommending the queen to revoke the charter by 
a writ of scire facias. In pursuance of this advice, her Majesty 
declared the acts null and void, without issuing the scire facias, 
however. 

Boone's memorial, in which he was joined by some influential 
London merchants, is chiefly interesting to us from its discussion 
of the effect of the second of these acts on the jurisdiction of the 
Bishop of London. Its last, and evidently its weightiest, argu- 
ment is as follows : " That the ecclesiastical government of the 
colony is under the Bishop of London ; but the governor and 
his adherents have at last done what the latter often threatened 
to do, totally abolished it ; for the same assembly have passed 
an act, whereby twenty lay-persons, therein named, are made a 
corporation for the exercise of several exorbitant powers, to 
the great injury and oppression of the people in general, and 
for the exercise of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction, with absolute 

1 He wit, South Carolina (Carroll, Historical Collections, i.). For a 
complete description of the two acts, see North Carolina Records, i. 635- 

637. 

2 Hawks and Perry, South Carolina Church Doctunents, 32, note. 



48 THE WORK OF COMPTON. 

power to deprive any minister of the Church of England of his 
benefice, not only for immorality but even for imprudence, or 
incurable prejudices between such minister and his parish, 
. . . which the inhabitants of the province take to be an high 
ecclesiastical commission-court, destructive to the very being 
and essence of the Church of England, and to be held in the 
utmost detestation and abhorrence by every man that is not an 
enemy to our constitution in church and state." 2 Considering 
the interest of Bishop Compton in the colonies, and the fact that 
he was one of the commissioners to whom the act was referred, 
we may assume with reasonable safety that it was largely due 
to him that the acts were nullified. On November 30, 1706, 
the very day on which the governor and deputies repealed the 
measures which the English government had declared void, 
the assembly passed a new act, which, being ratified in England 
as lacking in objectionable features, continued to be the basis 
of the established Church of England in South Carolina up to 
the Revolution. 2 

The first commissary of the Carolinas was the Reverend 
Gideon Johnson, who was appointed to that office and also to 
the rectorship of St. Philip's, Charleston, in 1707. He con- 
tinued to officiate in both positions until he met his death by 
drowning, May 23, 1716. 3 Apparently he performed his duties 
to the satisfaction of both people and diocesan, but he exercised 
very little jurisdiction. It is even uncertain whether he held 
visitations; if he did, the records have been lost. 4 

Johnson was succeeded in 1 717 by the Reverend William 
Treadwell Bull, who served till 1723. Bull, who was the incum- 
bent of St. Paul's, Colleton, seems to have held annual visita- 

1 Hewit, South Carolina (Carroll, Historical Collections, i.), 1 51-154 ; North 
Carolina Records, i. 639. 

2 For the act of March 30, 1706, see Dalcho, Protestant Episcopal Church 
in South-Carolina, 75 ; Rivers, South Carolina, 230 ; Trott, Laws, No. 2, pp. 
5-22 ; Grimkd, Laws of South Carolina, No. 258. For additional acts sup- 
plementing that of November 30, 1706, see Grimke', i. Laws, No. 284 (April 
24, 1708); No. 293 (April 8, 1710) ; No. 313 (January 7, 1712); No. 475 
(January 23, 1722). 

8 Letter to Bishop Robinson, May 31, 171 6, Fulham MSS. 
4 Dalcho, Protestant Episcopal Church in South-Carolina, 116. 



ROBINSON'S INSTRUCTIONS. 49 

tions and to have maintained some sort of discipline ; x but the 
first man to exercise anything like real commissarial functions 
was the Reverend Alexander Garden, who arrived at Charleston 
in 1 719, and was soon afterward made rector of St. Philip's. 
Appointed commissary for North and South Carolina and the 
Bahama Islands in 1726, he held his first visitation in 1731, 
and from this time was very active in the performance of 
his duties. 2 

Although the commissary's authority apparently amounted to 
very little in practice till the advent of Garden, his relations to the 
clergy under his supervision had been well defined some time 
before. This fact is shown by the following set of instructions 
issued by Bishop Robinson, presumably upon the appointment 
of Johnson's successor : — 

1. "That they [the clergy of the Carolinas] do in all things 
Conform themselves to the Canons and Rubrickes, and in Case 
of any Difficulty apply themselves to the Commissary for his 
Advise. 

2. " That no Clergyman, the Commissary excepted, presume 
to officiate, or by any means concern himself in the affairs of 
another Parish, unless the Minister be sick, and that his consent 
be thereunto first had, or except he be absent, and at so great a 
distance from his Parish that his leave cannot be timely obtained ; 
In which Case any perquisit receiv'd by the Ministers officiating 
shall be by him without the least deduction given to the Incum- 
bent unless he refuse to receive the same. 

3. " That no Minister for the time to come shall take upon 
him to supply any vacant Parish without a License from the 
Bishop to officiate in the Province of N. or S. Carolina, and the 
Commissary's appointment for the particular Parish ; and that as 
to the Care of such Parishes, the Clergy shall govern themselves 
by such Directions as the Commissary shall give them, till such 
time as the Bishop's pleasure can be known. 

4. " That when the Banns are superseded by a Grant of a 
License, the Minister shall not join together any Persons in the 
holy estate of Matrimony, but such as his own Parishioners, 

1 Tiffany, Protestant Episcopal Church, 230. 

2 Dalcho, Protestant Episcopal Church in South-Carolina, 98, 103, 116. 



50 THE WORK OF C0MPT0N. 

or at least that the Woman be so. And that when the Minister 
shall have married such couple, He shall notify the same within 
a Month after to the Commissary. 

5. " That the Commissary shall strictly and punctually hold 
a general Visitation of the Clergy each Year, and that he shall 
visit them parochially and call them together at other times, as 
often as the good of the Church and the Necessity of affairs 
shall require it. And that at such Visitations, He shall earnestly 
recommend them so to frame their own Lives as may adorn the 
doctrine of Christ our Lord ; and so to discharge all the parts of 
their Ministerial Office as may best lead to the Edification of 
those intrusted to their care." 1 

Even during this period, when the Bishop of London had as 
yet no commission, one comes across frequent instances not only 
of the actual exercise, but of the formal recognition, of his 
general powers as diocesan. For example, at a meeting of Janu- 
ary 20, 171 1, convened and presided over by Dr. Sharpe, Arch- 
bishop of York, and attended by Dr. Robinson, Bishop of Bristol, 
Dr. Bisse, Bishop of St. Davids, Atterbury, prolocutor of the 
lower house of convocation, and Drs. Smallridge and Stanhope, 
the archbishop made a proposition concerning the providing of 
bishops for the plantations ; but " as the Bishop of London, 
who from his recognized relation to the colonial churches had a 
right to be first consulted on such a project, was not present, 
the matter was dropped." 2 Again, Nicholas Trott, who pub- 
lished his Laws in 1721, dedicated them to " William . . . Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan 
. . . and to the . . . Reverend and Honourable the Members of 
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts ; 
and particularly to . . . John . . . Lord Bishop of London, to 
whose Jurisdiction in Matters Ecclesiastical the British Planta- 
tions in America do belong." 3 Moreover, not only was the 
Bishop of London's position as colonial diocesan well recog- 

1 Fulham MSS., April 22, 1717, " Somerset House J. L." [John, London]. 

2 Thomas Newcome, Life of Archbishop Sharpe, i. 532, cited by Perry, 
American Episcopal Church, i. 399. 

3 The Laws of the British Plantations in America relating to the Church 
and Clergy, Religion and Learning (London, 1721). 



RESULTS OF COMPTON'S ACTIVITY. 51 

nized, but also — on the part of the mother country, at least — 
great care was taken not to encroach on his province. 1 

So far we have followed the results of the work of Compton 
and his successor Robinson, a work in which the former had 
taken the distinctively leading part. He had reestablished the 
authority of the Bishop of London in the colonies ; he had stim- 
ulated individual enterprise toward the extension of the Church 
of England in those territories ; he had instituted the custom of 
sending commissaries to exercise delegated authority ; and most 
particularly, he had been one of the chief moving causes in the 
formation of that society which did more than any other organi- 
zation toward the foundation of the present Protestant Episcopal 
church in the United States. 

1 Compare a commission issued by the Society for Propagating the Gospel \ 
to Francis Nicholson, October 17, 171 2: "Now know all men by these \ 
Presents that the Said Society Have and by these presents Do (as much as in . 
them is and ought to be in most humble Submission to his Majesty's Royal 
Prerogative and Power and the Jurisdiction of the R* Rev d the Lord Bishop 
of London) Request and Desire the said Francis Nicholson to make Enquiry 
in the best manner and by such Ways and Means as to him shall be thought 
fitt and requisite, of the Society's Missionaries, Schoolmasters, and Catechists, 
with respect to the good Purposes and Designs of the Society relating to 
them, And of the present State of the Churches, Glebes, Parsonage-Houses, 
and Libraries (Sent by the Society) within all and every Such Parts of Her 
Majesty's Dominions and Countries as are comprised in the Commission now 
granted to the said Francis Nicholson from his Majesty for the purposes 
therein mentioned," etc. (Foote, Annals of King's Chaftel, i. 216-217, where 
the whole instrument is cited.) 



CHAPTER III. 

THE ROYAL COMMISSION: GIBSON TO SHERLOCK, 1723-1748. 

Edmund Gibson took control of the see of London in 1723, 1 
and with his accession a conscientious and enthusiastic prelate 
was again at the head of the Anglican church in the colonies. 
In his first address, delivered November 2, he said : " Being 
called by the providence of God to the government and admin- 
istration of the diocese of London, by which the care of the 
churches in the foreign plantations is also devolved upon me, I 
think it my duty to use all proper means of attaining a compe- 
tent knowledge of the places, persons, and matters entrusted to 
my care. And as the plantations, and the constitutions of the 
churches there are at a far greater distance, and much less known 
to me, than the affairs of my diocese here at home, so it is the 
more necessary for me to have recourse to the best and most 
effectual methods of coming to a right knowledge of the state 
and condition of them, which knowledge I shall not fail, by the 
grace of God, faithfully to employ to the service of piety and 
religion, and to the maintenance of order and regularity in the 
church." 2 What a similarity in spirit to Compton's first letter ! 
Moreover, emulating the example of his zealous predecessor, 
Gibson did not long delay the execution of his purpose to find 
out all that it was possible to know concerning the religious con- 
dition of the colonies under his charge ; for in the ensuing year 
he sent out sets of questions to be answered by every Episcopal 
commissary and clergyman in America. Since the form of these 
queries is in all cases practically the same, those addressed to 
Commissary Blair of Virginia may be taken as a sample : — 

" Queries to be answered by Persons who were Commissaries 
to my Predecessor. 

1 Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesice Anglicancz, ii. 305. 

2 Wilberforce, Protestant Episcopal Church, 107-108. 



BISHOP GIBSON'S QUERIES. 53 

" [1.] What public acts of assembly have been made & con- 
firmed, relating to the Chh or clergy within that Gov* ? . . . 

" [2.] How oft hath it been usual to hold a visitation of the 
Clergy ? how oft have you Called a convention of them ? & what 
has been the business ordinarily done, & the method of Proceed- 
ing in such meetings ? . . . 

" [3.] Does any Clergyman officiate who has not the Bp' s 
licence for that Gov* ? . . . 

" [4.] What Parishes are there which have yet no Churches 
nor Ministers ? . . . 

" [5.] How is the revenue of the Churches applied which 
arises during the vacancies ? . . . 

" [6.] What are the ordinary prices of the necessaries of life 
there ? . . . 

" [?•] Can you suggest anything that may be serviceable to 
religion & conduce to the ease of the Clergy & their more com- 
fortable subsistence, which you believe to be fairly practicable 
& which will in no way interfere with the Authority of the 
Governor nor be judged an infringment of the rights of the 
People ? " 1 

This list was replied to, query for query, by Commissary 
Blair, July 17, 1724. 2 The other commissaries and clergymen 
answered with more or less regularity. At this point, however, 
attention will be given solely to the reply of the Reverend 
William Gordon, commissary of the Barbadoes ; for in his answer 
general rather than particular interests dominate. 

On the receipt of Gibson's letter, Gordon applied for advice to 
Worsley, governor of the island ; for he was unwilling to do any- 
thing without the approbation of his excellency. 3 To this appli- 
cation the governor made the following reply : " From the perusal 
of the Rt. Rev. Lord Bishop of London's Letter to you, I find his 
Lordship is of opinion that there is a great uncertainty in the 
ground and extent of his Jurisdiction in the Plantations, and as 
I can't authorize any Jurisdiction the Bishop of London may 

1 Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 257-260. 

2 Ibid. 

3 See Gordon to Worsley, Barbadoes, February 10, 1 723-1 724, Fulham 
MSS. 



54 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK. 

have till I know what it is, I must consider his Lordship's Let- 
ters and Queries to you and the rest of the Clergy of this Island, 
as private Letters and Queries to you and them, to which I 
think you ought all to pay the honour and respect, that is due 
to so learned, so good, so wise, and so great a Prelate. Your 
prudent Conduct in this affair is very comendable and praise- 
worthy." Authorized by this letter, Commissary Gordon — 
unofficially, as it would seem — answered the queries, and 
wrote to his diocesan a long letter concerning the basis and 
the scope of the Bishop of London's colonial jurisdiction, as he 
understood it. 

He begins by expressing the current view that the Bishop of 
London enjoys his authority by prescription or ancient right. 
In regard to the rumor that it rests on an order in council 
granted to Laud, he says that he has searched the Council 
books from Queen Elizabeth to King Charles without finding 
any trace of such a document. He then goes on to give 
his reasons for believing that the colonies were put under 
the care of the Bishop of London either at the end of the reign 
of King Charles or in the beginning of that of James II. 
Having completed his survey of the origin and basis of the 
jurisdiction, Gordon proceeds to a theoretical discussion of its 
scope. In his opinion, even if no order in council had ever 
been issued, the temporary orders in every governor's instruc- 
tions answer the same purpose, " as being themselves not only 
Solemn Orders of Council pass'd and establish'd but also 
referr'd to and expressly enforc'd by Letters Patent under the 
Broad Seal." Hence, since the king orders the various gov- 
ernors "to give all countenance and encouragement to the 
exercise of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
London excepting as before excepted 2 . . . the exercise thereof 
is well warranted by . . . Instructions and Authorities and by 
the Commission under the Great Seal by which these are espe- 
cially enforced." It may very well be objected, he argues, that 
the words, " so far as conveniently may be," leave it to the dis- 



1 Worsley to Gordon, February 15, 1723-1724, Fitlham MSS. 

2 The exceptions related to powers especially reserved to the governors. 



THE BASIS OF THE BISHOP'S AUTHORITY. 55 

cretion of the particular governors as to whether they will 
allow the commissaries to exercise authority in their respective 
provinces. He thinks that this is a serious limitation, but that 
when the commissary proceeds with the governor's consent, the 
instructions are a sufficient warrant for every legal act of his. 
Of course the Bishop of London's powers are of uncertain 
tenure, resting, like the commissions and instructions, on the 
king's pleasure ; but, concludes Gordon, " until the king actually 
Determines, Alters, or Revokes his Commissions & Instructions 
they are (with all Deference to Superior Judgments) in my 
humble Opinion, very Sufficient to warrant the appointment 
of a Commissary to proceed in a Judicial manner, with the 
Leave & Countenance of a Governor." x From this, the most 
careful and thorough of the answers returned to the queries, it 
would seem that the Bishop of London would be seriously 
hampered in any authority that he might choose to exercise 
over ecclesiastical concerns in the colonies. 

After weighing the opinions which he received, Gibson came 
to the conclusion that the powers embodied in the instructions 
to the royal governors, under which Compton, Robinson, and he 
himself had hitherto exercised their authority, were insufficient. 2 
He accordingly appealed to the crown to establish his jurisdic- 
tion on a more definite basis, and even refused to send out any 
more commissaries until an understanding should be reached. 
The reason which he assigned for his doubts and for his subse- 
quent action was the fact that the colonies lay beyond the 
proper limits of his diocese, and that the only basis of his jurisdic- 
tion there was the rather transitory authorization from the crown 
embodied in the commissions to various governors. He said 
that he had made a vain search for the order supposed to have 
been issued to Compton, but had failed to find it either in the 

1 Gordon to Gibson, November 3, 1725, Fulham MSS. 

2 For further comments on the order in council supposed to have been 
issued in Compton's time, see Wilberforce, Protestant Episcopal Church, 107 ; 
Abbey, English Church and Bishops, i. 82 ; McConnell, American Episcopal 
Church, 175, who erroneously cites Abbey, to the effect that the ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction of the Bishop of London over the colonies was confirmed by an 
order in council in 1703. 



56 GIBSON- TO SHERLOCK. 

Council books or in the Council Office; that, moreover, able 
lawyers whom he had consulted had informed him that, even 
if such an order existed, " it would not warrant the Bishop to 
grant Commissions to others, unless he himself should be first 
Empowered so to do by a Commission from the king under the 
great seal ; the Plantations being not a part of any Diocese but 
remaining under the sole and immediate Jurisdiction of the 
King; and that Jurisdiction not to be legally delegated but 
under the Great Seal." x 

In a " Humble Representation " to the king in council, Gibson 
indicated a further reason which influenced him to the step he 
then took. It was, in effect, that, under existing conditions, the 
commissaries appointed by his predecessors were in a very 
anomalous position. Although in general strictly refraining 
from any interference with collations, wills, or benefices, 2 they 
had been absolutely prevented from holding any courts at all, 
or indeed from proceeding in any judicial manner whatever. 
As an instance of the extent to which the matter had been 
carried, he cited the case of Governor Lowther, late of the 
Barbadoes, who procured an "Act of Assembly and Council," 
prohibiting the issuance of any kind of ecclesiastical citation or 
process, under penalty of a fine of .£500. Owing to this and 
other restraints, he argued, the jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
London had become merely nominal, and his commissaries were 
unable to proceed judicially against any sort of immoralities or 
irregularities. In addition to this, a clause inserted in many of 
the governor's instructions providing that "if any person already 
preferr'd to a Benefice shall appear to you to give scandal, 
either by his Doctrine or Manners you are to use the best 
means for the Removal of him," seemed to give to the governor 
what little power the bishop possessed even over the clergy. 
In view of all these circumstances, Gibson deemed it advisable 
to secure a more sufficient basis for his power, and, as has been 
said, declined to exercise any further jurisdiction or to appoint 

1 Lo7idon Weekly Miscellany (edited by Richard Hooker, London, 1736- 
1738), i. 81. 

2 There had been one or two instances of such interference by Blair in 
Virginia and by Bray in Maryland (see above, pp. 40, 43) . 



THE ROYAL COMMISSION. 57 

any more commissaries until an understanding as to the precise 
limits of his authority could be reached. 1 

"Convinced that any attempt to exercise jurisdiction over the 
whole body of the laity would be resisted, or would at least 
occasion great dissatisfaction, he suggested to the king and 
council, that in case they saw fit to grant him a commision 
under the great seal, they should make it extend only to the 
Clergy, and to such other Persons and Matters as concern'd 
the Repair of Churches, and the decent Performance of Divine 
Service therein." 2 His petition was referred to the attorney 
and solicitor generals, who reported " that the authority by 
which the Bishops of London had acted in the Plantations was 
insufficient," and that ecclesiastical jurisdiction in America " did 
belong neither to the Bishop of London, nor to any Bishop in 
England ; but was solely in the Crown by virtue of the Suprem- 
acy, and that the most proper way of granting to any person 
the exercise of such jurisdiction, was by Patent under the 
Broad Seal." In pursuance of this advice, such a patent was 
granted to Gibson, but, according to Sherlock 3 and other con- 
temporaries, only to Gibson personally and not to his succes- 
sors ; hence the grant expired with his death, and the jurisdiction 
reverted to the crown. 4 

The instrument, in its final form, was dated April 29, 1728. 5 

1 " The Humble Representation of Edmund, Bishop of London, to the 
King's most Excellent Majesty in Council " (Fulham MSS.) . 
2 London Weekly Miscellany, i. 83-86. 
8 See his Report, 1759, New York Documents, vii. 363. 

4 Brodhead, New York, ii. 456-457, note 3. Other references are : Wilber- 
force, Protestant Episcopal Church, 108 ; Whitney, South Carolina, ii. 413 ; 
Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 137, 159; Forsyth, 
Cases and Opinions, 45 ; New York Documents, vii. 363 ff. ; Perry, American 
Episcopal Church, i. 154-155. 

5 South Carolina Historical Society, Collections, i. 225 ; New Jersey Archives, 
v. 126-128. The text of this commission may be found in New York Docu- 
ments, v. 849-854 (reprinted below, Appendix A, No. v.). There were two 
patents. The first, issued by George I., was superseded by that of his successor, 
George II. The former seems (although the writer has been unable to find a 
copy of it) to have been more full than the one under which Gibson and his 
commissaries exercised their powers. Cf. London Weekly Miscellany, i. 86 : 
"The Commission above mentioned expired upon the Death of his late 



58 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK. 

Its full title is, " A Royal Commission for exercising Spiritual 
and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the American Plantations." 
In the preamble the King, George II., grants to the Bishop of 
London "full power and authority," by himself or by his "suf- 
ficient commissary or commissaries," to be by him "substituted 
and named to exercise Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction 
in the special causes and matters hereinafter expressed and 
specified, within our several Colonies, Plantations, and other do- 
minions in America, according to the laws and canons of the 
Church of England, in England lawfully received and sanctioned." 
Four causes are then specified in which the Bishop is to have 
jurisdiction: (i) the visitation of all the churches in which 
the rites and liturgy of the Church of England are used ; 
(2) the citation of all rectors, curates, and incumbents, as well 
as of all priests and deacons in Church of England orders, 
and the right to inquire, by witnesses duly sworn, into their 
morals and conduct, with power to administer oaths in the 
ecclesiastical courts, and to correct and punish any of these 
clergy by suspension, excommunication, or like measure ; (3) the 
appointment of commissaries, removable at pleasure, for the 
exercise of this jurisdiction ; (4) the right of appeal, before cer- 
tain of the Privy Council enumerated in the commission, for all 
those who should feel themselves wronged by any decision of 
the local ecclesiastical courts of the commissaries. 

Bishop Sherlock, in his report on the church in the colonics 
presented to the king in council, February 19, 1759, 1 discusses 
this part of his predecessor's commission in some detail. He is 
inclined to regard the powers conferred by it as very vague and, 

Majesty ; and before a new one could pass the Great Seal, it was represented 
to the Bishop, That insomuch as the Laws of the Several Governments have 
already provided for the Repair of Churches, and the furnishing of such things 
as are necessary for the decent Performance of Divine Service ; the taking that 
care out of the Hands of the Vestries, who are chiefly interested with it, would 
probably give Uneasiness, and be the Occasion of leaving the Fabricks and 
Furniture of Churches not so well taken Care of as they are at present : Where- 
upon the Bishop, desiring as much as possible to avoid the giving Offense, and 
the raising any uneasiness, was Content that the New Commission should be 
confined to a Jurisdiction of the Clergy alone : and so it stands." 
1 New York Documents, vii. 363-364. 



SHERLOCK'S COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION. 59 

in many respects, inadequate. Let us follow him as he takes 
up the four points one by one. He shows (1) that, although 
the bishop, or his representative, has authority to visit all the 
churches, he has no power whatever over church wardens or 
vestries ; (2) that, although he has the right to summon and dis- 
cipline all regularly-ordained clergymen of the Church of Eng- 
land, he has not the least control over those making false 
pretences to such profession ; (3) that although he is empowered 
to examine the conduct of the clergy under oath, he has no 
authority to summon lay witnesses, however necessary such a 
step may be to the purposes of the trial ; (4) that, although he 
may appoint commissaries, he has no control over their judg- 
ments, since an appeal lies, not to him, but to the Privy Council. 
His conclusion is that the bishop's only resource was a power 
of absolute removal. After pointing out how defective the 
Bishop of London's jurisdiction was under this grant, and how 
futile it must ever be to invest a bishop with a charge beyond the 
seas which could not be duly executed except in person, Dr. Sher- 
lock goes on to discuss his favorite remedy — an American 
bishop. The reasons which he adduces in favor of his plan, 
and the difficulties he urges against it, will be considered 
later ; for they are brought forward by him and by others again 
and again during the century. 

The limitations in the grant of ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
may have been as formidable as Sherlock maintains ; but it 
must be remembered that this commentator was hardly an un- 
biassed critic, and also that, like most written instruments, the 
commission was susceptible, under a liberal interpretation, of 
far-reaching implied powers. As a matter of fact, however, 
owing to the position in which the commissaries found them- 
selves in the colonies, they usually confined their activities to 
visitation, exhortation, supervision, and administration, making 
very few attempts to exercise a punitive jurisdiction, or to set 
up courts. Indeed, outside of Virginia, the only instance known 
in which a commissary subjected a priest to formal trial and 
sentence is the case of Commissary Garden of South Carolina 
against Reverend George Whitefield. 1 

1 See below, p. 80 ff. 



60 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK. 

Whatever flaws Sherlock may have picked in the royal grant 
of 1728, and however eloquently he may have argued in favor 
of an American episcopate as the only possible system by which 
the Church of England in America could be ruled, Gibson found 
his commission, for the time being at least, a basis quite ade- 
quate for his purposes ; and that the English government so re- 
garded the patent is evident from the fact that it at once took 
steps to enforce its provisions. To this end, Newcastle ordered 
the following clause to be inserted in each succeeding governor's 
instructions : 1 — 

" Having been graciously pleased to grant unto the Right 
Reverend Father in God Edmund Lord Bishop of London a 
Commission under our Great Seal of Great Britain whereby he 
is empowered to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by himself 
or by such Commissaries as he shall appoint in our several 
Plantations in America. It is Our Will and Pleasure that you 
give all countenance and due encouragement to the said Bishop 
of London or his Commissaries in the legal exercise of such 
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction according to the laws of the Province 
under your government and to the tenor of the said Commission 
a Copy whereof is hereunto annexed and that you do cause the 
said Commission to be forthwith registered in the public records 
of that our Province." 2 

Moreover, in another article of all subsequent instruc- 
tions was inserted a provision from a draft prepared by an 
order in council of May 3, 1727, in accordance with a peti- 
tion from Bishop Gibson 'that all laws against blasphemy, 
adultery, drunkenness, swearing, etc., be vigorously put in 

1 See Newcastle's communication to the Board of Trade, January 21, 1729- 
1730, and the Board's reputed draft of instructions, April 20, 1730, in South 
Carolina Historical Society, Collections, i. 227. See also an address to the 
king on this subject from the Board of Trade, March 17, 1 729-1 730, New 
Jersey Archives, v. 264-265. 

2 The first instructions in which the clause seems to have been embodied 
were those to Governor George Burrington of North Carolina, issued De- 
cember 14, 1730. The other clauses on which the authority of Compton and 
his successors rested (quoted above, pp. 26, 29, 30) were also inserted in these 
instructions, and continued to be reinserted in all the later commissions. See 
North Carolina Records, iii. 90-118; New Jersey Archives, v. 264-265. 



GIBSON'S METHODUS PROCEDENDI. 6l 

force." 1 This is only one of many instances which prove, 
not only that the bishop manifested a warm paternal interest 
in the colonies, but also that his right to such an interest was 
well recognized by the authorities of the English government. 
Having set his colonial jurisdiction upon a secure legal basis, 
Gibson next formulated a plan for regulating the legal pro- 
cedure of his commissaries in any trials of immoral or irregular 
clergymen which they might be called upon to undertake. The 
rules which he drew up are embodied in a pamphlet which he 
sent to each of his commissaries. 2 He begins by notifying the 
commissary in question of his appointment, and then enumerates 
a list of directions which are to guide him in the performance of 
his functions. These duties are distinctly grouped under several 
heads. In the first place, he is to proceed by private admonition 
against clergymen guilty of irregularity or negligence in the 
performance of their duties, and, in the case of graver crimes, 
by public or even judicial measures; in the latter event, he is to 
use a short and summary process according to the directions 
laid down in the Methodus Procedendi, and is always to act with 
the assistance of at least two clergymen chosen by himself ; 
except in case of very serious crimes he is to confer the sentence 
of suspension ab officio et beneficio rather than of deprivation, in 
order to give the guilty person time to repent. Secondly, he is 
to hold a visitation every year, and is to send an account of it to 
the Bishop of London ; he is to inquire into the state of par- 
sonages and glebes, and to find out if there be any clergymen 
officiating without a testimonial from the bishop. In the third 
place, he is to inform the bishop what steps have been or are to 
be taken to obtain an act of assembly for presentment of crimes 
and vices to be made to the temporal courts twice every year. 
Next, he is to give notice to his diocesan of any hardships or 



1 North Carolina Records, iii. 111-112; South Carolina Historical Society, 
Collections, i. 225 ; London Weekly Miscellany, i. 83-86 (an account of the 
clause, with text) . 

2 There is a copy in the Fulham library. It is a quarto of sixteen pages, 
entitled Methodus Procedendi contra Clericos Irregidares in Plantationibus 
Americanis. It has no date or place of publication, but it was issued by 
Gibson, September 28, 1728. It is reprinted below, Appendix A, No. vi. 



62 GIBSON- TO SHERLOCK. 

oppressions to which he finds the clergy exposed in relation to 
the rights to which they are entitled by the laws and constitu- 
tions of the government. Finally, he is directed " to take all 
proper opportunities to recommend to the clergy a loyal and 
dutiful Behaviour towards the present Government, as vested in 
his Majesty King George, and established in the Illustrious 
House of Hanover, and that they pay all due Submission and 
Respect to the Governor sent, as well in regard to his Com- 
mission and Character, as to engage his Favour and Protection 
to the Church and Clergy." It was left to the judgment and 
prudence of the commissary to apply these rules in particular 
cases. 

So much for the duties of the commissary in general. A con- 
sideration of the particular method to be employed in proceed- 
ing against irregular clergymen will now be taken up. 

The special irregularities for which a clergyman might be 
brought to account were as follows : officiating without a 
license; marrying without banns or license; neglect in cate- 
chising, or the omission of any other church duty ; a refusal to 
baptize or to bury ; and immoralities of various kinds, such as 
incontinence, profanity, intemperance, and the like. In each 
case the trial was to be held in a church, either that of the 
commissary or that of the person accused. The prosecution 
was to be conducted either by a promoter appointed by the 
commissary or by a voluntary accuser. In the latter case the 
accuser was to deposit a sum of twenty pounds, by way of 
security for the costs of the trial should he fail to prove his 
accusation. The process was to be summary, beginning with 
a citation under the seal of the commissary, and this citation 
was to be served on the party personally if possible, if not by 
a process viis et modis, to be hung on the door of his church 
or of his dwelling-house. If he did not appear, he should be 
called contumacious, and the proceedings should go on without 
him ; that is, the witnesses should be admitted, sworn, and 
examined, their depositions published, and a day assigned for 
the sentence. If the defendant appeared and confessed, he 
should be sentenced according to the character of the offence, 
either by admonition, suspension, or deprivation, and should 



THE CIRCULAR OF 1743- 63 

also pay the costs. If he denied the charge, witnesses should 
be produced, who, after being duly sworn, should be examined 
before a notary public, or other person skilful in taking deposi- 
tions. Witnesses properly summoned and refusing to appear, 
or appearing and refusing to undergo examination, might be 
compelled by ecclesiastical censure. The depositions were to 
be taken in the presence of the commissary (who acted as 
judge) and his assessors. Forty-eight hours were then granted 
the defendant to inquire into the character of the witnesses and 
to arrange whatever questions he might see fit to ask them. 
Beyond that, the defendant, by his proctor or advocate, might 
put in a defensive plea. If the proof advanced by the prosecu- 
tion were legally insufficient to convict, the defendant was to be 
dismissed with his costs. He was allowed to appeal, any time 
within fifteen days, to the judges appointed by the king's com- 
mission. The record of the trial was to be preserved in a book 
kept by the registrar. 1 

It will be noticed that this process was strictly ecclesiastical 
in almost every respect. The only secular element was the 
question of the costs, to recover which a civil suit might be 
required. Whether such a suit could ever have been successful 
it would be hard to say. All the penalties in the hands 
of the commissary, even those for forcing the attendance 
of witnesses, were strictly ecclesiastical. Processes according 
to the procedure laid down in the Methodits were tried to some 
extent in South Carolina and Virginia. Whether or not they were 
used elsewhere is extremely uncertain ; probably they were not. 

During Gibson's occupancy of the see of London, he seems 
to have become aware of the evil of licensing promiscuous 
applicants for churches in the American plantations. In order 
to avert the danger, he issued the following proclamation, 
July 13, 1743: — 

" There having been of late, a greater number of Persons 
than usual who have come from the Plantations for Holy 

1 The various forms of citations, articles, sentences, appeals, etc.. in both 
Latin and English, may be found below in Appendix A, No. vi., where the 
whole pamphlet is given. 



64 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK. 

Orders ; I find it convenient to have it understood, that no 
Person may come over for that Purpose with any Hope of 
Success, unless he bring with him, 

"i° A Testimony and Recommendation from the Commissary 
for that Government, in which his usual residence has been. 

" 2° An Account, from the Same Hand, of the Truth of his 
Title, and if it be for an Assistant, what Occasion the Incum- 
bent has to desire one, and whether the Salary which he pro- 
poses to allow be sufficient with regard to the value of the 
Living, and the Duty to be performed. 

" The several Commissaries are hereby requested, to take the 
proper Methods of making these Things known, in the respec- 
tive Governments to which they belong. 

" Edm' London." * 

Having made such earnest efforts to establish his colonial 
jurisdiction on a definite legal basis, and to provide for the due 
exercise of his authority, personally and through his commis- 
sarial representatives, Bishop Gibson naturally identified himself 
closely with the concerns of the Church of England in the 
various colonies. 

In Massachusetts he met with considerable opposition, — in 
one case, at least, from his own people. The congregation of 
King's Chapel, composed chiefly of Tories, had but a cold 
welcome for a diocesan who was a Hanoverian Whig; they 
sent him no letter of congratulation, and sought to oppose the 
exercise of powers which they had accepted from previous 
bishops. 2 Governor Dummer, on the contrary, although an 
Independent, seems to have been more favorably disposed 
toward the new bishop. He wrote, April 29, 1724: "I have 
the honour of Y r Lordship's Letter of the 29 th Novemb r , which 
I received not till the Middle of April. I heartily Congratulate 
Your Lordship upon y r Promotion to the See of London, — To 
which your eminent piety and Learning, Moderation and firm 
Attachment to his Majesty's Interest and Government and the 

1 A printed circular apparently distributed among the colonies (original in 
Fulham MSS.). 

2 Foote, Annals of King^s Chapel, i. 321. 



THE CHURCH IN MASSACHUSETTS. 6$ 

protestant Succession do So Justly Entitle You; and I do 
Assure Your Lordship that this Government have a Good part 
of the Gen 11 Satisfaction in Your Lords ps Translation to a place 
of that Important Trust in the Church of England. I shall 
always Use my best endeavours to answer Your Lordships 
Desire and Expectation by Countenancing and Encouraging 
the Church and the Ministers thereof in their endeavours to 
promote Piety, Loyalty, and good manners, So long as I have 
the Hon r . to Serve his Majesty in the Chief Command over this 
province." * 

Soon after his accession, Bishop Gibson, following his cus- 
tomary procedure with regard to the several colonies, sent a 
set a queries concerning ecclesiastical conditions to all the 
Church of England clergymen in Massachusetts. 2 From their? 
answers it appears that there were no parishes in the province] 
that the governor had no power of induction, that clergymen} 
took possession of their livings and held them solely by virtue 
of the license of the Bishop of London, and that ministers were 
supported partly by voluntary contributions from the congrega- 
tions and partly by stipends from the Society for Propagat- 
ing the Gospel. 3 Since there was as yet no commissary in 
New England, the Reverend Samuel Myles, rector of King's 
Chapel, replied for the district. He reported that there had 
never been any visitation or convention there. In answer to 
the query, " What public Acts of Assembly have been made & 
confirmed, relating to the Church or Clergy within that Gov* ? " 
he said : " There are Several laws for the Establishing of Inde- 
pendants, & Settling Orthodox Ministers chosen by the people. 
The Church of England only indulged, as the Anabaptists & 
Quakers for never in any of the Laws is the case supposed 
that the clergy of the Chh of Engl d , should be here Supported." 
" It would tend very much to the advantage of the Church & 
comfort of the Clergy," he suggests in answer to another query, 

1 Ibid. 292-293, from Massachusetts Archives, li. 403. Probably the 
bishop's letter, to which this is a reply, was destroyed in the fire which 
burned the Court House, December 9, 1747 (cf. Foote, as above). 

2 See above, pp. 52-53. 

3 Perry, Historical Collections, iii. (Massachusetts) 149-150. 

5 



66 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK. 

" if the members of the Chh were freed from any compulsion 
to pay to the independant ministers, as they are forced to do 
in many places Particularly in Bristol where the Church people 
have been imprisoned for not paying their rates towards the 
maintenance of M r . Cotton a Dissenting Minister of that 
Town." 1 Such was the condition of the church and the church 
people whose interests Gibson was to protect and further in 
New England. 

The first case in which his hand is distinctly seen is the 
celebrated Checkley controversy. 2 This trouble was due to the 
fact that John Checkley was a violent and unreasoning partisan 
of the Church of England among people who were bitterly 
hostile to the claims he advanced in her behalf. The conflict 
began in 1723, when he published in London a reprint of 
Leslie's Short mid Easy Method with Deists, to which he 
added a "Discourse concerning Episcopacy in Defense of 
Christianity and the Church of England." In this work, pass- 
ing beyond the proper limits of his argument, he rudely attacked 
the clergy and people of New England. For this he was tried 
at Boston in 1724, and was fined. Frequent appeals were made 
to Gibson for advice and support ; but the bishop showed his 
tact and moderation by standing aloof as far as possible from 
the actual controversy, intervening only to exhort both parties 
to peace and unity. Nevertheless, his utterances show that, in 
quarters to which his authority extended, he would see to it 
that no essential principle of the Church of England was in- 
fringed upon. 3 His efforts toward conciliation seem to have been 

1 Myles to Gibson, June 1, 1724, Perry, ibid. 153-154. 

2 For good accounts of this controversy based on the sources, with liberal 
excerpts from them, see Foote, Annals of King*s Chapel, i. ch. viii., Slafters 
Checkley in "Prince Society Publications," and Perry, American Episcopal 
Church, i. ch. xv. Some of the documents are printed in Perry, Historical 
Collections, iii. (Massachusetts), passim. 

3 See Gibson to Myles, September 3, 1724, in Perry, Historical Collections, 
iii. (Massachusetts) 166-167; Foote, Annals of King^s Chapel, i. 331-332; 
Douglass, Summary, i. 228-229. The copy in Massachusetts Historical 
Society, Proceedings, 1865, p. 226, is there stated to have been written to the 
Honorable Thomas Graves of Charlestown ; but a more authentic copy of it, 
addressed " To y e Rev d M r Miles, at Boston, New England," may be found in 



THE NEW ENGLAND SYNOD. 67 

appreciated. For example, December 17, 1724, the Reverend 
David Mossom, the clergyman at Marblehead, wrote to thank 
him for his "pathetick exhortations and authoritative injunc- 
tions to Peace and amity." Yet Mossom continues in a tone 
of sadness : " Such is the flaming zeal of this M T . Checkley and 
the party which abets him, that, be your Lorship's decisions 
what they will, except they agree with their ways of thinking, 
they put 'em behind 'em and take no notice of them ; and . . . 
we . . . the poor inferior Clergy . . . are the Butts of their 
vehement and ungoverned heat." a Checkley went to England 
in 1727, intending to take orders and settle in Marblehead; but 
Gibson was wise and politic enough to refuse to ordain a man 
who, whatever the merits of the question he defended, had ren- 
dered himself so obnoxious to the people of Massachusetts. 
Subsequently he secured ordination from the Bishop of 
Exeter and went to Rhode Island, where he passed the rest 
of his life. 

The Checkley controversy was still in progress when a new 
question arose in which Gibson was called upon to play a lead- 
ing part. On May 27, 1725, a convention of New England 
ministers petitioned the governor, council, and House of Rep- 
resentatives of Massachusetts for permission to hold a synod 
for the purpose of correcting certain abuses which had crept 
into the church. On June 3, the council voted to grant this 
request; but on the eleventh the House of Representatives 
voted to hold the matter over until the next session for further 
consideration. In this decision of the lower house, the governor 
and council finally concurred. 2 On June 19, the very day on 
which the authorities voted to postpone the matter, Samuel Myles 
and Timothy Cutler, two Church of England clergymen of Boston, 3 
presented a counter petition to the assembly, in which they pro- 
tested against the synod for reasons which they enumerated as f ol- 

the Proceedings of the same society for 1 866-1 867, p. 342 (see Foote, Annals 
of King's Chapel, i. 331, note 2). 

1 Foote, Annals of King^s Chapel, i. 333 ; Perry, Historical Collections, iii. 
(Massachusetts) 169. 

2 Chalmers, Opinions, i. 4-14. 

8 Rectors of King's Chapel and Christ Church respectively. 



68 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK, 

lows : first, because it purposed to concern itself with all churches, 
among them the Church of England, with which it had no right to 
meddle ; secondly, because various utterances in the petition — 
as, for example, one referring the council to a time when there 
was no Church of England in the province — indicated that 
the synod would probably be prejudiced against that church; 
thirdly, because the prime movers in the affair had not con- 
sulted the Episcopal ministers, who were, equally with all other 
denominations, concerned in the moral and religious life of the 
colony ; in the fourth place, because the ministers of this body 
felt that they should be represented in the synod, and yet 
thought it improper, "it being without the knowledge of their 
R* Rev d Diocesan the Lord Bishop of London." Their final 
reason was stated as follows : " Whereas by Royal Authority 
the Colonies in America are annex'd to the Diocese of London, 
& inasmuch as nothing can be transacted in ecclesiastical 
matters without the cognizance of the Bishop, We are humbly 
of opinion that it will neither be dutiful to his most sacred 
Majesty King George nor consistent with the rights of our 
R* Rev d Diocesan to encourage or call the said Synod until 
the pleasure of His Majesty shall be known therein." This 
last proposition hinted at possibilities in the way of an exten- 
sion of the control of the crown and the Bishop of London over 
the ecclesiastical affairs of New England which must have been 
most startling to the authorities in that province. This consider- 
ation very likely impressed the council ; for it voted, June 22, 
that the petition be dismissed as containing an "indecent re- 
flection" on the proceedings of that board, and "groundless 
Insinuations." The next day the lower house concurred in 
this vote. 1 

As soon as the matter of the synod came to the ears of the 
Bishop of London, he despatched a letter (August 17) to the 
Duke of Newcastle discountenancing the project. In his letter 
he indicates two points that should be kept in mind in consider- 
ing the advisability of allowing such an assembly : first, what 
the ministry purpose to do ; secondly, whether, if the right to 

1 Perry, Historical Collections, iii. (Massachusetts) 1 70-1 71 ; see also an 
extract from the New England Coura?it, July io, 1725, Ibid. 173. 



GIBSON AND THE SYNOD. 69 

hold synods be granted, it may not furnish a new handle of com- 
plaint to the English dissenters in England, who are already 
clamoring for a sitting convention. 1 In a second letter, written 
four days later, he takes a firmer stand. He doubts whether, in 
view of the Act of Union between England and Scotland, the 
Independents of New England " are any more than a Federal 
Ministry and People." He admits that the Act of Uniformity 2 
" extends no further than the Realm of England, the Dominion 
of Wales, and town of Berwick on Tweed, and therefore left the 
Crown at liberty to make such Worship and Discipline as the 
King and Queen for the time being think proper, the Established 
worship and discipline of the territories ; " but he adds that " by 
the act of union, 3 every King and Queen at their Coronation 
shall take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve invio- 
lably the settlement of the Church of England, and the Doctrine, 
Discipline, Worship, and Government thereof as by Law estab- 
lished within the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, the domin- 
ions of Wales, and town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the 
territories thereto belonging" By this clause, he affirms, the 
establishment of the Church of England extends to the Ameri- 
can plantations, and in view of this fact, the Independent clergy 
are simply a tolerated body as in England. Such being the 
case, the Bishop maintains that to grant them permission to 
hold a synod would be to do an injustice to both the established 
and the dissenting clergy at home, neither of whom were per- 
mitted by law to hold synods. 4 

Gibson's letters appear to have roused the English authorities 
to action ; for on September 24, 1725, the lords justices wrote to 
him informing him that his communications to the Duke of 
Newcastle concerning the proposed New England synod had 
been laid before them, and that they had sent them to the 
attorney and solicitor generals for an opinion. Having received 

1 Perry, Historical Collections, iii. (Massachusetts) 179. 

2 13 & 14 Charles II., c. 4. 

8 6 Anne, c. 5. 

4 Chalmers, Opinions, i. 4-6 ; Perry, Historical Collections, iii. (Massachu- 
setts) 180-181. During most of the eighteenth and part of the nineteenth 
centuries, convocations were not allowed to be held. 



70 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK. 

no official account of the matter, they desire his Lordship to aid 
them with all the information in his power. 1 

On September 29 the attorney and solicitor generals ren- 
dered an opinion, to the effect that there was no such regular 
establishment of a national or provincial church in New Eng- 
land as to warrant the holding of a synod or convention ; 2 that, 
should the clergy presume to hold such an assembly without the 
royal license, the king's prerogative would be sufficient to declare 
the meeting illegal, even though it had been sanctioned by the 
council and the House of Representatives. 3 Yet, in the opinion 
of the crown lawyers, such an assembly, being only a voluntary 
society, could not be illegal if it did not seek to pass any authori- 
tative acts. 4 

After receiving and considering these decisions, the lords 
justices sent a communication, through the hands of Secretary 
Charles de la Faye, to the governor of Massachusetts, in which 
they expressed surprise that he, contrary to his instructions, had 
neglected to inform the government of the proposed synod. 
Their letter reported the opinion of the attorney and solicitor 
generals that such an assemblage could not be legally held with- 
out the king's consent, and directed that, if it were already in 
session, it should be dissolved, but not by any formal act, lest 
by that step the authorities might seem to imply that such a 
body had some shadow of right to assemble. This ended the 
matter : the synod never met. 5 

In the long struggle which New England Episcopalians 
carried on during the greater part of the first half of the eigh- 
teenth century, in their efforts to secure exemption from taxation 

1 Perry, Historical Collections, iii. (Massachusetts) 186-187. 

2 Based on the Massachusetts Provincial charter of October 7, 1691 : see 
statute 3 William & Mary, and Acts of the Massachusetts Assembly to 1722. 

3 Chalmers, Opinions, i. 12. 
*Ibid. 14. 

5 December 17, 1725, the Reverend Benjamin Colman, a prominent Boston 
clergyman, wrote to Bishop Kennett giving an account of the discussion relating 
to the calling of the synod, with his own opinions on the subject. His personal 
allusions to the Bishop of London are interesting, coming as they do from a 
liberal Congregationalist. Any one interested in his presentation of the case 
may find it completely stated in Turell, Life of Colman, 136-141. 



CHURCH AFFAIRS IN MARYLAND. J\ 

for the support of Congregational ministers and churches, they 
frequently called upon their diocesan for aid; but although he 
labored earnestly in their behalf, they were unable to obtain such 
a settlement as they desired until the advent of Shirley to the 
governorship of Massachusetts. 1 Shirley proved a powerful 
ally. He had not been long in the province when he secured 
the passage of a perpetual act, providing that the taxes levied 
on Episcopalians should be applied to the support and mainte- 
nance of their own religious institutions, and not to those of the 
Congregationalists. 2 

In 1730 Bishop Gibson appointed Roger Price, rector of 
King's Chapel, to be his commissary for New England. Indeed, 
it seems to have been his custom, after he received his commis- 
sion, to place a commissarial representative in every important 
colony which had hitherto been without one. 

Passing southward through the various colonies, we find little 
to interest us until we come to Maryland. The situation of the 
Church of England here was much confused, and in spite of the 
fact that, relatively speaking, its membership was larger in 
Maryland than in any other province, its condition was very 
discouraging to those who had its best interests at heart. This 
unsatisfactory state of affairs was due partly to the fact that the 
respective rights of the Bishop of London and the lord proprie- 
tary had never been definitely marked off from each other, a cir- 
cumstance which gave rise to frequent misunderstandings and 
conflicts. In theory the chief control of the ecclesiastical affairs 
of the colony was in the hands of the Bishop of London and his 

1 Shirley was ordered by his instructions to " give all Countenance and due 
Encouragement to the . . . Bishop of London or his Commissaries in the 
legal exercise of . . . [their] Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, according to the Laws 
of the Province under . . . [his] Government." For the whole extract relat- 
ing to ecclesiastical matters, see American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, 
New Series, xiii. 221, from Massachusetts Archives, xlix. 

2 For a detailed account of the struggle of the Episcopalians to secure ex- 
emption from religious taxation for the support of the Congregational church, 
see Foote, Annals of King's Chapel, i. passim, and Perry, Historical Collec- 
tions, iii. (Massachusetts) passim. There had been acts previous to that of 
1743 granting exemption to Episcopalians ; but they had been only temporary 
in scope. 



72 GIBSOIV TO SHERLOCK. 

\ representatives ; but practically the proprietary and his agent, 
the governor, had a not inconsiderable share in the manage- 

I ment of these affairs. The situation was all the more compli- 
cated by the variable attitude of the latter two toward the 
establishment. At one moment they were most friendly, at 
another they seemed to wish to do everything in their power 
not only to check its progress but even to imperil its very exist- 

\ ence. This circumstance, together with the fact that most of 
the Maryland clergy refused either from principle or from self- 
interest to acknowledge the delegated jurisdiction of the com- 
missary, combined to render the authority of the Bishop of 
London extremely uncertain. His power was still further 

) hampered by the independent position of the fully-installed 
parish priest. Selected by the proprietary, licensed by the 
Bishop of London, and inducted by the governor, he was secure 

j from removal. He might be tried by the commissary, if there 
happened to be one ; but it was more than uncertain that what- 
ever sentence the latter pronounced against him could be 
enforced ; in theory, to be sure, the commissary was, by the 
Methodus Procedendi, issued by Gibson, empowered to punish 
convicted clergymen by suspension or by deprivation of orders. 1 
An instance of the limitations under which the commissarial 
authority suffered at this time is seen in an extract of a letter 
from one Giles Rainsford to a friend, April 10, 1724. Rainsford 
writes that he had expressed a desire to the commissary of the 
Western Shore that he would convene the clergy for the purpose 
of addressing the present bishop on his promotion to the see of 
London, and that the commissary had expressed his willingness 
to do so, but had said that he had not the requisite power. 
Whereupon Rainsford adds that the clergy know who their 
bishop is, and if they forget their oath of canonical obedience 
it is no fault of his. 2 Soon after this, at the governor's sugges- 
tion, the clergy of the Western Shore convened and drew up a 

1 Hawks, whom I have followed closely on this point, is particularly strong 
in his emphasis on the unassailability of the inducted clergyman. For his 
opinion, see above, p. 6. It should be noted, however, that he is not suffi- 
ciently careful to distinguish between theory and practice. 

2 Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Maryland) 233-234. 



COMMISSARIAL ACTIVITY IN MARYLAND. 73 

message of congratulation to their new diocesan. Their atti- 
tude toward him seems to have been particularly encouraging ; 
for, after assuring him that he had gone to work more resolutely 
than any of his predecessors, they agree to answer all his 
queries, and promise him their obedience and aid in sustaining 
his jurisdiction. 1 In a few weeks the clergy of the Eastern 
Shore, evidently convoked by their commissary, sent a letter of 
congratulation to their new bishop. In it they spoke in high 
terms of the friendly attitude of Lord Baltimore, deplored the 
want of a regular spiritual jurisdiction, and for more specific 
information referred to their answers to his Lordship's queries. 2 

These answers, which are given in full in Perry's documents, 
shed considerable light on the existing ecclesiastical situation. 
They show, for example, what laws have been made in the 
province in relation to the church, the clergy, and the schools. 
On the Western Shore it seems to have been the custom for the 
commissary to hold a visitation of all the churches, schools, and 
glebes once in three years. A meeting of the clergy and 
church wardens was usually held once a year. At this time 
clergymen who were accused of any faults were presented, and 
six months afterward the commissary visited the several parishes 
of such parsons as had been accused. 3 

A letter written in the autumn of this year (1724) by Wilkin- 
son, of the Eastern Shore, gives an interesting account of his 
methods of procedure as commissary under Gibson's predecessor. 
Foreseeing that the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction which 
had been committed to him was "of no great moment and 
new " in that province, and that the management of it would be 
attended with difficulties, and realizing particularly that a false 
step at first would be fatal to its future success, he convoked 
the clergy at once for consultation. In convention they agreed 
upon certain articles, which Wilkinson laid before the govern- 
ment and also sent to Bishop Robinson, in both cases securing 
approval of them. He then delivered these articles to his 
clergy, and, among other things, ordered them to present for 

a May 29, 1724, Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Maryland) 234-235. 
2 July 16, 1724, Ibid. 239-241. 
9 Ibid. 131 ff. 



\ 



74 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK. 

punishment none but such as were " notoriously guilty " ; others 
they should privately admonish in the presence of the church 
wardens and vestry of the parish. The commissary next pro- 
ceeded to make personal visitations of the parish churches, 
glebes, and houses, to examine their condition, and to advise 
necessary repairs. During these visitations he licensed such 
schoolmasters as he found qualified to teach, and issued cita- 
tions to the church wardens to appear at the general con- 
ventions. They came at the time appointed, bringing their 
presentments with them; whereupon Wilkinson proceeded, 
" after the same manner used in the spiritual courts in Eng- 
land, as near as the circumstances of the country would per- 
mit." He did everything gratis himself, without proctor or 
registrar. 

In the opinion of Wilkinson, the plan of ecclesiastical censures 
seems to have worked well. He says that it caused a " visible 
reformation " in that part of the province, and that " the sight 
of one person performing penance struck a greater terror upon 
all offenders than all the pecuniary and corporal punishments 
which the secular courts inflict, as some of 'em have publickly 
acknowledged." 1 Wilkinson was undoubtedly optimistic as to 
the success of his plan ; but he certainly was a popular com- 
missary, at least so far as such an officer could be popular 
among the conflicting elements of colonial opposition to the 
institution; and there can be little doubt that, among those 
willing to recognize his authority, his punitary measure had 
some efficacy. 

The class of well-disposed individuals was all too small, how- 
ever ; and it was evident that among the churchmen at large in 
Maryland this form of exercising ecclesiastical discipline was 
far from satisfactory. In view of this fact, a motion was made 
in the lower house of the Maryland assembly to erect " a Juris- 
diction for the better Government of the Church and Clergy." 
This immediately called forth a " Humble Representation " from 
the clergy to the governor and upper and lower houses. Their 
chief complaint against the proposition lay in the fact that it 

1 Wilkinson to Gibson, September 9, 1724, in Perry, Historical Collections, 
iv. (Maryland) 244-246. 



THE MARYLAND ASSEMBLY AND THE CLERGY. 75 

purposed to place the jurisdiction in the hands of laymen, a pro- 
ceeding which the petitioners pronounced "inconsistent with 
the Lord Proprietary's Charter and with the rules of good 
reason, repugnant to the laws of the realm of Great Britain, 
destructive to the constitution of the Church of England, & w* 
they can't in conscience submit to as being altogether opposite 
to the ordination vow." They admitted, however, that there 
was need of a law for the enforcement of ecclesiastical juris- 
diction in the province, and expressed their willingness to confer 
with the legislature upon the proper heads of a bill for that 
purpose. 1 

The reply of the lower house to this petition was extremely 
favorable. It believed that the scandals which at that time 
were manifest in the lives of the clergy were due to the want of 
some jurisdiction to correct offenders ; for since the Bishop of 
London's commissaries were not strong enough to correct 
clerical offenders, and since the clergy claimed exemption from 
lay jurisdiction, there was practically no power over them. But 
while insisting that something be done, the assembly expressed 
a readiness to accept the clergy's offer of assistance in drafting 
a bill to stop these infringements against law and morality. 2 Ulti- 
mately, however, the assembly decided to adhere to the original 
purpose of establishing a jurisdiction of lay persons over the 
clergy ; and, in the words of Wilkinson, nothing could prevent 
the execution of the measure unless the governor, the only friend 
in the province upon whom the clergy could rely, refused to give 
his consent. 3 At this juncture Governor Calvert intervened, in 
the interest of the Bishop of London. He gave two reasons 
for refusing to sanction the proceedings of the assembly : first, 
because the clergy were under the bishop's inspection, and it 
was for him to see to it that they were properly disciplined ; 
secondly, because in his opinion there was no ground for the 

1 Petition enclosed in a letter to Gibson, November 20, 1724, in Perry, His- 
torical Collections, iv. (Maryland) 247-248. 

2 Reply enclosed in the same letter, Ibid. 248-249. 

3 Wilkinson to Gibson, June 15, 1726, Ibid. 254-255. It appears from a 
letter of Governor Calvert to Gibson that this step was due to the machina- 
tions of one Thomas Bardley, a lawyer, who was an enemy of the governor. 



f6 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK. 

extravagant charge against their conduct. 1 However cogent his 
reasons may have seemed, the interference of Calvert was all 
that was necessary to block the measure. 2 

In 1730 Gibson made the energetic Henderson commissary of 
the Eastern as well as of the Western Shore. 3 At his first visita- 
tion, held in the former district June 24, 1730, he stated that the 
objects of his coming were to examine credentials, to bespeak 
the assistance and concurrence of the clergy for a strict and 
orderly administration of the divine offices, and to exhort them 
to a suitable and exemplary life and conversation ; 4 and at a 
meeting held on the other Shore he repeated the speech. 5 At 
both convocations his acts and recommendations were necessarily 
of a purely spiritual nature ; for Henderson, much as he might 
perhaps have wished, was in no position to go further. In the 
first place, he was unpopular with the governor, against whom 
he had appealed to Lord Baltimore through his diocesan, 
and also with a great majority of the people ; in the second 
place, he dared not set up any jurisdiction until he had re- 
ceived an exemplification of the royal commission ; for, had 
he attempted to act without the authority of this instrument, 
undoubtedly the provincial court would have stayed him. 6 A 
copy of the commission from the late king was in his posses- 
sion, but that was of course superseded. Probably one of the 
new copies had been sent to him, but had either been lost on the 
way, or, as he suspected, had been suppressed by his enemy 
the governor. 7 In spite of his zeal, therefore, Henderson con- 
tinued impotent. 

1 Calvert to Gibson, June 22, 1725, Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Mary- 
land) 249-250. 

2 There is considerable evidence even from their own midst that the moral 
condition of the clergy was bad : see, for example, the admission of the peti- 
tioners themselves (above, p. 75), and compare also Wilkinson to Gibson, 
December 4, 1727 (Perry, Ibid. 259-260). 

3 Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, ii. (Maryland) 204. 

4 For Henderson's address to the clergy, with all the proceedings of this 
visitation, see Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Maryland) 288-296. 

6 For the second visitation, see Ibid. 297-299. 

6 See Henderson to Gibson, August 12, 1730, Ibid. 300-301. 

7 Henderson to Gibson, March 13, 1 731-1732, Ibid. 302-303. Notwithstand- 
ing these handicaps, Henderson continued for a time as an active worker in the 



COMMISSARIAL AUTHORITY CEASES IN MARYLAND. J J 

In 1733 the proprietary visited the colony. Although he 
took pains to prevent any further encroachments upon the 
clergy, and did all he could to reconcile clergy and laity ; and 
though he placed no hindrance in Henderson's way in the 
exercise of the powers conferred by his commission, he stood, 
nevertheless, upon the provisions of his charter as he under- 
stood them, and strictly maintained his rights in the ordering of 
the affairs of church discipline within the boundaries of the 
province. 1 Owing to the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of 
obtaining the enforcement of the powers entrusted to him, Com- 
missary Henderson resigned in 1734, and from this time the 
Bishop of London ceased to be officially represented in the 
province of Maryland. 2 

After Henderson's resignation the situation grew rapidly 
worse. Owing to a quarrel with the proprietary, Bishop Gib- 
son took little interest in the Maryland church during the last 
years of his life. 3 The clergy, left to themselves, fell into 
greater disorders than ever. " Enthusiasm, deism, and libertism 
(with all which we abound) make no small advantage," writes 
the Reverend Hugh Jones to Gibson, October 19, 1741, 
" especially seeing these sons of Eli are permitted to persevere 
with impunity, and without censure or admonition, since the 
offation of the exercise of M r . Henderson's commissarial power." 
Having sketched the situation, he suggests a remedy : " The 
vast importance . . . [of] the affair obliges me in conscience 
to inform your Lordship of the great necessity there is for a 
strict spiritual discipline over the Clergy here, either by an 
effectual restitution of your Lordship's delegated Jurisdiction, or 
by the Proprietor's exertion of his power (according to the Ec- 
clesiastical jurisdiction of England, to which his Charter refers) 

interests of the clergy ; he made visitations regularly, and resisted laws made 
to curtail the clerical stipends. August 7, 173 1, he again urged his diocesan 
to send him an attest of the royal commission, in order that he might proceed 
against one Mr. Urmston, who had been complained of by his parishioners 
for leading a scandalous life. 

1 Henderson to Gibson, June 5, 1733, Ibid. 311-313. 

2 Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 309-310; Hawks, Ecclesiastical 
Contributions, ii. (Maryland) 222. 

3 Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, ii. (Maryland) 230. 



78 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK. 

if the right be really invested in him ; or else by a conjunction 
of your Lordship's authority & his ; or finally by an Act of Par- 
liament or Assembly obtained for the purpose or by what other 
method your Lordship's prudence and Interest can accomplish 
so great & necessary a work." But no heed was paid either to 
Jones's representation or to his suggestions, and at the time of 
Gibson's death the theoretical jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
London had no basis in fact. 1 

The Nestor among American commissaries, Blair, of Vir- 
ginia, lived nearly through the Gibson period. In a letter to 
his diocesan of February 10, 1723-24, he gives some account 
of his work. Bishop Compton had directed him, many years 
before, to make no further use of his commission than was 
necessary to keep the clergy in order. In consequence of 
this advice and of the conditions that he had to face, Blair 
had never attempted to exercise coercive jurisdiction by set- 
ting up a spiritual court. Indeed, unless an accused clergy- 
man were notoriously delinquent, he had been accustomed 
to proceed no farther than to admonition; for, owing to the 
dearth of clergymen, 2 it was difficult to fill the place of one 
suspended. 3 During the interval between Gibson's accession 
and the issue of the royal commission of 1727, some of the 
clergy, "looking upon it as a time of misrule . . . became 
exceeding scandalous," apparently worse than usual. 4 Blair 
chafed under the temporary restraint which deprived him of 
his accustomed authority, though even when he was vested with 
full commissarial powers he seems never to have been a very 
keen disciplinarian. 5 

1 Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Maryland) 323-324. 

2 Blair states that at the time of writing there were at least two vacancies 
with no clergymen to supply them. 

3 May 13, 1724, Blair writes that he has made only two suspensions in the 
thirty-four years that he has been commissary. He wants his commission in 
order to suspend two more clergymen accused of drunkenness. It was evi- 
dently the custom for each successive Bishop to renew the commissarial com- 
missions. For Blair's letter, see Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 
252-253, and Fulham MSS. 

4 Blair to Gibson, June 21, 1725, Fulham MSS. 

5 Blair rarely prosecuted except when public opinion required him to do so, 
and even then he never resorted to coercion. A letter which he wrote to 



CLERICAL TENURE IN MARYLAND. 79 



Throughout the Gibson period the precariousness of the 
clerical tenure in Virginia was a matter of much concern to 
the parish priests and the ecclesiastical authorities. From an 
examination of the answers which the Virginia pastors returned 
to his queries, Gibson first learned how dependent many of 
them were on the arbitrary will of their flocks. A large num- 
ber of them he found to be without institution or induction, 
the parishes having disregarded the law directing them to 
make presentations to the governors, and the governors having 
neglected to make use of their powers as ordinaries to induct 
without presentation when such lapses occurred. In order to 
remedy this state of affairs, Gibson petitioned the king to 
instruct the governors, in case of neglect of presentation by 
parishes, jure devoluto, to collate and induct suitable clerks. 
The bishop thought, however, that six months, the term 
allowed to patrons by English ecclesiastical law, was too 
short a time for the colonies, particularly when the clergyman 
came from England, as was most often the case. In view of 
these facts, he recommended that in the colonies the term be 
lengthened to eighteen months. 1 Later, William Gooch, who 
came over as governor in 1727, undertook to adjust the matter 
in the interest of the establishment; 2 but he was evidently 
unable to effect a settlement. 

As years went by, the establishment steadily lost ground in 
Virginia, and cognizance of spiritual affairs came more and 
more into the hands of the governor and council. Much blame 

Bishop Gibson, March 24, 1734, concerning accusations of drunkenness among 
the clergy, is characteristic. While admitting that the charges are in a 
measure true, he adds : " It is neither so general, nor to such a degree as he 
[an anonymous accuser] represents it. Some of the persons he names I have 
admonished both in discourse and writing, and have found some good effects 
of these admonitions. But it is a mighty hard matter to prove any of these 
things upon them ; it is an office which everybody declines ; except when the 
scandal is very great; and then when they fear a public prosecution, they 
contrive to leave the country. I shall take occasion to renew my admonition 
to some persons on this subject ; but I may safely tell your L d P it is not near 
so bad as that anonymous person represents " (Fulham MSS.) . 

1 The petition, dated 1724, is printed in Perry, Historical Collections, i. 
(Virginia) 345-346. 

2 See Blair to Gibson, October 28, 1728, Ibid. 352-353. 



80 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK. 

was laid on Blair. It was admitted that he was a good man ; 
but he was advancing in years, and it was generally felt that 
he was not equal to the requirements of the office. Accord- 
ingly a wish was expressed for a deputy commissary, " a 
clergyman of known zeal, courage, & resolution & such as 
could redress some great neglects of duty," among the clergy, 
" and bring Episcopacy to be better regarded." 1 But Blair's 
life was drawing to a close. He died in 1743, and was suc- 
ceeded by William Dawson, who had been recommended by 
Governor Gooch. 2 Dawson received his commission July 18, 
1743, having been previously elected president of William and 
Mary College by the unanimous choice of the visitors. 3 

By far the most energetic of Gibson's commissaries was 
Alexander Garden of Carolina. He made visitations almost 
every year, examined letters of orders and licenses, heard com- 
plaints, regulated disorders, enforced the instructions of the 
bishop, and transmitted accounts of his proceedings, both to 
his ecclesiastical superior and to the Society for Propagating 
the Gospel. He was very active as a disciplinarian, and was 
somewhat of a stickler for formality, seeking to conduct his 
trials more in accordance with canonical form than any other 
commissary in the colonies. 

From the many prosecutions which Garden undertook, that 
against the celebrated preacher George Whitefield, may, al- 
though it came to nothing, be selected for consideration, as 
perhaps the most interesting. 4 On his first visit to Charleston, 
in September, 1738, Whitefield was well received by the com- 

1 Reverend Anthony Gavin to Gibson, October 5, 1738, Fulham MSS.; 
partly printed in Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 360-361. 

2 Gooch to Gibson, May 10, 1743, in Perry, Ibid. 367. 

3 Dawson's commission may be found in the Fulham MSS. As commissary, 
Blair had no salary or perquisites, though the governor allowed him ^100 a 
year out of the quitrents. Probably Dawson received the same. See Hart- 
well, Blair, and Chilton, Present State of Virginia. 

4 These letters are in the Fulham MSS. The most complete account of 
the affair yet written may be found in Tyerman, Life of Whitefield, i. passim. 
(See index, under "Garden.") Tyerman, however, had not examined the 
letters at Fulham. He errs in saying (i. 399-400) that it was "the first 
Episcopal Court in the British Colonies." 



THE TRIAL OF WHITEFIELD. 8 1 

missary. 1 This was before he began to exhibit to such a marked 
degree those qualities of enthusiasm and radicalism which after- 
ward caused the orthodox among his clerical brethren to regard 
him with suspicion. By the time of his second visit to South 
Carolina, he had come to be distrusted by Garden ; hence, 
when he called at the latter' s house in Charleston, March 14, 
1740, he was very coolly received. In the course of the in- 
terview which followed, the commissary charged him with 
breaking the canons of the church as well as his ordination 
vows, and warned him that, if he preached in any public church 
in the province, he would suspend him. Whitefield replied, " I 
shall regard that as much as I would a Pope's Bull." After 
some further discussion, which became more and more heated, 
Garden ordered him to leave the house. 2 Disregarding the 
commissary's warning, Whitefield continued to preach, and was 
in consequence brought to trial. 3 

The citation was issued on the eleventh of July, and on the 
fifteenth the trial was opened. 4 Whitefield refused to answer 

111 1 was received in a most Christian manner by the Bishop of London's 
commissary, the Rev. Mr. Garden, a good soldier of Jesus Christ" (Tyerman, 
Life of Whitefield, i. 143). 

2 Continuation of Whitefield' } s Journal, after his arrival at Georgia, March 
14, 1740. 

3 During the interval between the interview of March 14 and the opening 
of the trial, Garden took occasion more than once to denounce Whitefield 
from his pulpit, and wrote several letters, later published in pamphlet form, in 
answer to some printed utterances of Whitefield upon various subjects, in- 
cluding an attack on Archbishop Tillotson and strictures on Southern slave- 
holders. See Tyerman, Life of Whitefield, i. 359-364. 

4 The most detailed description of the trial is in Tyerman, Life of White- 
field, i. 396-401. A full account which Garden sent to his diocesan is unfor- 
tunately missing, as appears from a remark in a letter of July 8, 1743, from 
Garden to Gibson, to the effect that the account which he sent with his letter 
of January 28, 1741, had probably miscarried, since he had heard nothing of 
it. It is certainly not among the manuscripts at Fulham. For Garden's side 
of the story we have to depend on a rather meagre report of the case embodied 
in his answer to Bishop Sherlock's "circular letter." This may be found 
among the Carolina manuscripts at Fulham, under date February 1, 1750. 
Tyerman apparently never saw this letter. The form of citation was that 
provided by Gibson's Methodus Procedendi (see below, Appendix A, No. vi., 
where the complete text is given) . 

6 



2,2 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK. 

the articles of accusation presented against him until he was 
satisfied that the court had the requisite authority to examine 
him. After the commissary's commission had been produced, 
Whitefield proceded to question the jurisdictional authority of 
the Bishop of London over his case. He argued, first, that 
neither the bishop nor his agent had power to exercise legal 
jurisdiction in special cases in South Carolina unless supported 
by acts of the colonial assembly ; and secondly, that in any case 
he was, as a resident of Georgia, beyond the scope of Garden's 
commissarial court. He said, moreover, that " though he had 
preached in the fields near London, the bishop had never attempted 
to exercise such authority over him ; and that the Trustees of 
Georgia, to his knowledge, doubted whether the Bishop of Lon- 
don had any jurisdiction in the transatlantic colonies." * 

At Whitefield's request a day was given him in which to 
secure information as to the extent of the commissary's jurisdic- 
tion. When the court opened on the next day he presented a 
recusatio judicis^ that is, a refusal to accept Garden as his judge. 
This recusatio was based on the ground that the commissary 
had no power to proceed against him, since, as a clergyman of 
Georgia, he was out of the limits of Garden's jurisdiction. 2 
Moreover, he alleged that Garden was his enemy and had 
written and preached very bitterly against him. 3 Then a dis- 
pute arose as to who should pass upon the recusatio. The com- 
missary's attorney wanted it to be tried in court, but Whitefield 
wished it to be referred to six arbitrators, three to be chosen by 
each party. Thereupon Whitefield named as the three who 
were to act on his part two Independents and one French Cal- 
vinist, all of whom, according to Garden, were "zealous admirers" 
of the accused. 

1 Garden to Sherlock, February i, 1750, Fulhatn MSS. 

2 Whitefield to Gibson, September 8, 1740, Fulham MSS. 

3 Garden, in his letter of February 1, 1750, mentions only the latter reason, 
and Tyerman {Life of Whitefield, i. 399) makes the same statement. Possibly 
this was the real reason ; for Whitefield would hardly have wished to be tried 
by a prejudiced judge. Nevertheless, an exception based on want of jurisdic- 
tion would have been more easy to sustain than one founded on merely per- 
sonal grounds ; and this cause was probably the one insisted on then and in 
the subsequent appeal. 



THE TRIAL OF WHITEFIELD. 83 

Garden saw many obstacles in the way of submitting the 
exception to the ruling of the arbitrators. In the first place, 
there was the difficulty of securing a non-partisan judgment 
from such a board ; in the second place, if the members failed 
to agree, the case would probably have to be dropped, as the 
law made no provision for such an exigency ; and, finally, if they 
decided against the commissary, the laws were equally silent as 
to who should be appointed as judge in his place. In view of 
these difficulties, the commissary refused to allow the recusatio 
to be arbitrated, whereupon Whitefield appealed to the English 
authorities. 1 In compliance with the legal formalities in such a 
case, he was conducted before the commissary by the latter's 
apparitor, and took an oath to lodge his appeal within twelve 
months, depositing ten pounds as a guarantee that his oath 
would be observed. 

Garden kept the court in regular adjournment for five months 
after the expiration of the judicatory term allowed for such ap- 
peals, that is, twelve months, waiting for an official notification 
of the result of the appeal. 2 This did not come to hand ; but, 
inferring from a letter which he received that " Whitefield had 
deserted his Appeal, notwithstanding his solemn oath, in open 
court, bona fide to prosecute it," the commissary decided to 
carry on the case. Accordingly, he again summoned Whitefield 
to appear before the court ; and as the latter neither came nor 
answered his summons, he proceeded to examine witnesses, and 
on their evidence found him guilty of preaching in dissenting 

1 Whitefield, according to his own words, " appealed, according to law, to 
four of His Majesty's commissioners for reviewing appeals, to know whether 
the commissary ought not to have accepted a recusatio judicis, which I lodged 
in the court" (Whitefield to Gibson, September 8, 1740, Fulham MSS., and 
Tyerman, Life of Whitefield, i. 405). Although it is uncertain whom his 
appeal ultimately reached, it is certain that it was not, as Tyerman asserts 
{Ibid, 400), directed to the High Court of Chancery. 

2 See Garden to Gibson, January 28, 1741 : "I could have wished that the 
council your Lordship employed had, on the expiration of the Juratory Term, 
transmitted a proper Certificate from the Oifice, that Whitefield has deserted 
his Appeal w ch (if I am rightly informed) is the Method in Cases of Appeals 
in Civil Matters from America, and would not have been denied them " 
{Fulham MSS.). But the evidence is not altogether clear that Whitefield 
actually deserted his appeal. 



84 GIBSOIV TO SHERLOCK. 

meeting-houses and conducting service without the forms pre- 
scribed in the Book of Common Prayer. At the conclusion of 
the trial he pronounced upon him the sentence of suspension 
from the exercise of his functions as a minister of the Church 
of England. 1 In a subsequent letter to his bishop, Commissary 
Garden informed him that, if the lords appellees did not approve 
of his sentence, they might annul it. In any case he regarded 
the matter as ended so far as he was concerned, having done all 
he could with the means at his disposal. 2 

The evidence concerning the history of Whitefield's appeal 
to the authorities in England is very obscure and conflicting. 
Unfortunately, as he ceased to keep up his Journal after his 
arrival in England in the spring of 1741, his side of the story 
can be gathered only from occasional allusions in his letters. 
On the whole, however, one is inclined to doubt Garden's asser- 
tion that Whitefield deliberately deserted his appeal. Certainly 
there is good evidence to show that he intended at the start 
to prosecute it in all earnestness. In the first place, he took 
an oath and deposited a money pledge in the commissary's court 
to lodge his appeal within a year before the proper authorities. 3 
Secondly, on September 8, 1740, he wrote to Bishop Gibson 
informing him of his action, and seeking his Lordship's 
opinion as to the extent of the jurisdiction of the court of the 
commissary of the Carolinas. 4 Again, and this is a far more 
certain proof of the honesty of his intention at this time, he 
wrote to a friend in London : " The bearer brings the authentic 
copy of my appeal. I sent you another copy from Carolina. 
Be pleased to keep this I have now sent, till you hear of my 
coming to England. If I come in the spring, I will lodge it 
myself ; if not, be pleased to lodge it for me, and I will pay all 

1 Garden to Sherlock, February 1, 1750, Fulham MSS. The sentence was 
apparently in the form prescribed by Gibson in the Methodus Procedendi (see 
below, Appendix A, No. vi.). An English form of the sentence is given in 
Tyerman, Life of Whitefield, i. 400. 

2 Garden to Gibson, January 28, 1741, Fulham MSS. 

3 Tyerman, Life of Whitefield, i. 399. 

4 There is a copy of this letter in the Fidham MSS. It is printed in Tyer- 
man, Life of Whitefield, i. 405-406. 



WHITEFIELD'S APPEAL. 85 

expenses." 1 Finally, there are two bits of evidence showing 
that, although he may have been glad to get rid of the matter, 
it was not through any neglect on his part that the case was 
dropped. The first piece of evidence is in a letter to a friend, 
dated April 10, 1741, a month after his arrival in England, in 
which he says, " My 'Appeal' will come to nothing, I believe." 2 
The second is at the end of a letter to James Habersham, 
December 7, 1741, where he writes triumphantly: "The Lords 
see through Mr. Garden's enmity, and will have nothing to do 
with my Appeal; so that a hook is put into the leviathan's 
jaws." 3 

All this goes to show that, although Whitefield would have 
been glad to see the matter at an end, he was zealous enough 
to push it until he saw that nothing was going to be accom- 
plished. The delay which prolonged the proceedings beyond 
the regular judicial term was evidently due to a misunderstand- 
ing as to where the appeal should go, but it is difficult to know 
just where to place the blame. Whitefield himself expressly 
says, in his letter to Bishop Gibson, that he had appealed 
"according to law, to four of His Majesty's commissioners for 
reviewing appeals." On the other hand, an account in a com- 
munication from the Council Office seems to indicate that he 
had not appealed to the proper persons. Early in May, 1742, 
he called at the Office to obtain some information about his 
appeal, not being able to understand from his solicitor exactly 
what had been done about it. William Sharpe, who received 
him, informed him that it had been returned to his solicitor " as 
improper to be laid before his Majesty in Council, his Majesty 
having Appointed Commissioners for hearing and Determining 
Appeals of that Nature." Whereupon, Whitefield said that he 
would forthwith appeal to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the 
first named in the commission, to obtain a hearing. 4 Bishop 
Gibson, to whom Sharpe had written for advice, evidently 
applied in his turn to Commissary Garden, who sent a reply 

1 Tyerman, Life of Whitefield, i. 406. 

2 Ibid. 47 7. 

* Ibid. 539. 

4 Letter from the Council Office to Gibson, May 15, 1742, Fulham MSS. 



86 GIBSON TO SHERLOCK. 

which serves only to confuse the case still more. "Mr. White- 
field's pretence of Mistake in lodging his Appeal," he says, " is 
manifestly idle & groundless. Your Lordship knows that his 
Appeal was directed not only in general To the most rev d and 
most noble & right hon ble the Lords Commiss™" 8 &c. but to them, 
by each of the Names and Titles at length set down as speci- 
fied ; so that any such mistake was impossible." 1 And again 
in a later letter he says decidedly : " He interposed an Appeal 
to the Lords named in the Royal Patent; but . . . either 
wilfully or ignorantly neglected to prosecute [it] until the 
Juratory Term . . . was expired." 2 

There was evidently a mistake somewhere; but it seems 
almost certain that the blame lay rather with the ecclesiastical 
and civil authorities in England than with Whitefield. All the 
evidence available, especially the letter from the council, indi- 
cates that Whitefield certainly meant to apply to the proper 
persons and to get a hearing. But the upshot of the matter 
was that his appeal was never granted, the suspension pro- 
nounced upon him in absentia was never removed, and, when 
he continued to disregard it, Garden was only by lack of 
authority restrained from excommunicating him. 3 

This is the last important case which occurred during the 
term of the Reverend Alexander Garden. In the beginning of 
1749 he resigned his office as commissary. With his resigna- 
tion the visitations, which had been held since 1731, ceased, and 
were replaced by annual meetings of the clergy, the first of 
which was held April 5, 1749. 4 Garden resigned the rectorship 
of St. Philip's October 29, 1753. Not long after his return 

1 Garden to Gibson, July 8, 1743, Fulham MSS. 

2 Garden to Sherlock, February 1, 1750, Ibid. 

3 " Sentence of Suspension from his Office . . . still stands against him, — 
But this Sentence having had no effect upon him for his Reformation and 
Submission, I should have long since have proceeded, pursuant to the Canon, 
to that of Excommunication, but for a Defect in the Law, which would have 
rendered it as ineffectual as the other, viz?, that the Writ de excommunicato 
capiendo, could not be issued against him here, because the Statutes of Queen 
Eliza b . th on which that Writ is grounded, do not extend to America " (Garden 
to Sherlock, February 1, 1750, Ibid.). 

4 Dalcho, Protestant Episcopal Church in South-Carolina, 162. 



SUMMARY OF GIBSON'S WORK. 87 

from a visit to England he died in Charleston, September 27, 
1756, at the age of seventy-one years. 1 He was the last 
commissary who ever held office in the Carolinas. 

Such is the history of Gibson's connection with the colonies. 
Beginning with a consciousness that he had a binding duty to 
perform toward his charges beyond the sea, he took pains to 
find out all that was possible concerning their condition; en- 
deavored to have his authority set upon a secure footing ; and 
then, having formulated rules for the action of his representa- 
tives, he faithfully did his duty in each particular case as it 
arose. His ideal was to carry on the organization of the colo- 
nial churches under his charge, to check disorder and strife, and 
to supply the people with earnest and worthy ministers. In the 
midst of all his activity, he seems to have been guided by purely 
spiritual considerations. While he doubtless recognized the 
limitations of his power, he saw that the time was not yet ripe 
for the introduction of any other system, and so held his peace. 

With his successor, however, came a change of policy. For 
reasons to be explained later, Sherlock, refusing to carry on the 
jurisdiction in the manner of his predecessors, sought to secure 
the appointment of bishops resident in the colonies who should 
exercise the powers hitherto in the hands of the Bishop of Lon- 
don. But, before considering Sherlock's work and its conse- 
quences, it will be necessary to trace the history of the efforts 
to establish an American episcopacy which were made previous 
to his accession. 

1 Dalcho, Protestant Episcopal Church in South-Carolina, 176. 



CHAPTER IV. 

ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE, 1638-1748. 

The scheme of entrusting the government of the Church of 
England in America to resident bishops is almost as old as the 
jurisdiction of the Bishop of London. The early attempts to 
secure such an establishment came from the side of the English 
government and the Anglican hierarchy. No sooner was the 
Society for Propagating the Gospel founded, however, than 
the initiative began to be taken by the missionaries of that 
body who were resident in America. From that time on, the 
matter passed out of the hands of the English government, and, 
so far as it was considered at all in England, into those of the 
Society and of such bishops as were connected with that body 
either as officers or as members. After many discouragements 
and delays the hopes of those interested in the project seemed 
about to be fulfilled, when they were suddenly shattered by the 
death of Queen Anne. The new king and his advisers had so 
many other affairs claiming attention that they could not give 
any consideration to a matter of so little importance in their 
eyes ; and the agitation, which almost ceased after this set-back, 
was not revived again till the conversion of Timothy Cutler and 
the other Connecticut ministers, in 1722. Thenceforth, from 
time to time, the Episcopal clergymen of the northern and 
middle colonies, 1 both individually and collectively, appealed for 
what they characterized as an indispensable limb of their church 
system ; but their petitions received little attention. Whether this 
inattention was due to indifference, or to a feeling that the Bishop 
of London under his new commission possessed powers suffi- 
ciently adequate to render the erection of an episcopal hierarchy 
unnecessary, it would be hard to say. Certainly the English gov- 
ernment was not held back then, as it was later, by any fear of 
opposition from the colonial Independents. At any rate, from 

1 Particularly in New England in this period. 



A BISHOP DESIGNED FOR NEW ENGLAND 89 

whatever cause, the subject was rarely discussed in public from 
the end of the reign of George I. to about 1740, when Thomas 
Seeker, then Bishop of Oxford, again opened the question in a 
sermon before the Society for Propagating the Gospel. Dur- 
ing the next few years the movement was much strengthened 
by the aid which Bishop Sherlock lent it, particularly after 
his elevation to the see of London in 1748, when the question 
began to assume a public, political importance. Sherlock's 
accession, therefore, marks a new epoch in the episcopal ques- 
tion; for, from the time of the failure of the Laudian projects 
until Sherlock began his activity, the attempts to settle bishops 
in America concerned only the church as such. 1 The truth of 
this statement will at once be evident from a short historical 
examination of the character of these early attempts. 

They may be classed under a few main heads, namely, the 
efforts made by the English government, those made by the 
missionaries resident in the middle colonies, those of the Society 
and of the higher clergy in answer to the Society's appeals, and 
finally those of the Episcopal clergy of New England from 1722 
onward. It is worthy of remark that the centre of agitation lay 
chiefly in the middle and northern provinces, where the mis- 
sionaries felt the need of a strong organization. Few of the 
petitions emanated from the southern colonies ; for, since those 
provinces in which the Church of England was established by 
law felt no need of a stronger system, the clergy were not will- 
ing to curtail their accustomed liberty by submitting to the 
rigid supervision and authority of a superior, and the laity were 
not inclined to drain their purses to supply revenue for what 
they regarded as an unnecessary appendage. Let us now con- 
sider the history of this subject somewhat more in detail. 

As early as 1638, Laud seems to have had in mind a plan to 
send a bishop to New England, but to have been prevented by 
the disorders in Scotland from carrying out his purpose. 2 The 
next attempt to establish a colonial bishop occurred shortly after 

1 With the possible exception of the efforts of the Society in the time of 
Anne ; and even these were apparently actuated by purely missionary motives. 

2 Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus (see above, p. 21); Hawkins, Missions of 
the Church of England, 376. 



90 ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 

the Restoration, when Lord Chancellor Clarendon made prepa- 
rations to send Dr. Alexander Murray to Virginia. 1 The plan 
got so far as to receive the approval of the king in council, with 
letters patent for the execution of it; 2 but from some cause or 
other it came to nothing. Some writers attribute the failure to 
the sudden accession to power of the Cabal ministry, and the 
consequent dismissal of Sir Orlando Bridgman, to whose care 
the matter had been intrusted ; 3 other writers ascribe it to the 
opposition excited because the " endowment was payable out of 
the customs." 4 

1 The draft of a patent for the creation of a bishopric in Virginia was found 
in a manuscript of All Souls' College, Oxford, and a copy was brought to the 
United States by the Bishop of Virginia in 1867. It was among the papers of 
Sir Leoline Jenkins, whom we have already met as an earnest friend of the 
plan of extending the Church of England in America (above p. 34), and was 
probably drafted by his hand. Very likely this was the patent under which 
Sir Alexander Murray was to exercise his functions. This instrument (printed 
in Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 538 ff., and in Foote, Annals of 
King's Chapel, ii. 229-230) provides that all the provinces — with the excep- 
tion of New England, which was to be free from episcopal control — should 
be annexed to the diocese of Virginia. The aim, as the patent states, was 
" to establish and confirm under one and the same order and rule, and under 
one doctrine, discipline, authority, and jurisdiction all our remaining regions 
and plantations in America.'" 

2 Archbishop Seeker {Letter to Waipole, 17) informs us that he first heard 
of the design from his examination of the papers of the late Bishop Gibson ; 
and that the " Letters Patent for that Purpose are still extant." Cf. Chandler, 
Appeal Farther Defended, 148, note. 

3 Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 376 (from Gadsden, Life 
of Bishop Dehon, 5). Murray says that Sir Orlando Bridgman, to whom, 
together with the new Bishop of London, the case was referred, was put out 
of office by the incoming Cabal ministry (see Protestant Episcopal Historical 
Society, Collections, i. 139). According to Chandler {Appeal Farther De- 
fended, 148), a writer who furnished an extract from Cranmer's Catechism in 
a letter of February 28, 1770, said that he had seen an original letter — which 
fell into his hands by executorship — from Dr. Alexander Murray giving an 
account of the proposed establishment and dated, so far as he could recollect, 
October 16, 1673 ; he supposed that the " matter died, by the Cabal's throwing 
out Sir Orlando in the November following, before the bishop and he had made 
their report.' 1 The same view is expressed by Chandler {Free Examination, 1), 
who cites as reference " Some papers in the late Duke of Bedford's Office." 

4 Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 376. Seeker promulgated 
their view, which was based on an opinion of Gibson (Seeker, Letter to Wal- 



DEAN SWIFT AND THE VIRGINIA BISHOPRIC. 91 

The next attempt seems to have been in 1664. It was 
rumored that the " Commissioners for New England " sent out 
in that year were to establish bishops there ; * but even if the 
English authorities had any such original intention, they soon 
changed their minds, for, in the set of private instructions is- 
sued to the commissioners, they ordered them to take no steps 
in the direction of substituting episcopacy for the existing form 
of religion. 2 

The next instance of an attempted establishment was that 
associated with the name of Chaplain Miller of New York, who 
made a vain effort to have the Bishop of London consecrate a 
suffragan who should also be charged with the secular govern- 
ment of the province. 3 

Perhaps the most interesting of these abortive plans which 
took rise in England was the attempt to make Dean Swift 
Bishop of Virginia. Our knowledge of this affair is based 
on the correspondence between Swift and Colonel Hunter, 
who, designated as lieutenant governor of Virginia, but fail- 
ing to get the position, went out in 1713 as governor to New 
York. 4 From this correspondence it appears that Swift did 
not take the prospective appointment very seriously, but re- 



?, 17). What Gibson has to say 011 the matter may be found in his 
"Letter and Memorial on sending Bishops to the American Plantations 
Abroad, 1 ' in the manuscripts of the General Convention of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church (Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 139). 

1 The " Chamber at Amsterdam " wrote to the governor and council of N ew 
Netherlands, April 21, 1664, that it had received news from England "accord- 
ing to which his Royal Majesty of Great Britain, being inclined to reduce all 
his kingdoms under one form of government in Church and State, hath taken 
care that Commissioners are ready in England to repair to New England to 
install Bishops there the same as in Old England " {New York Documents, ii. 

235)- 

2 Ibid. iii. 59; cf. American Antiquarian Society Proceedings, New Series, 
xiii. 202. 

3 Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 160-161 ; McConnell, American 
Episcopal Church, 65-67. 

4 Extracts from this correspondence are cited in Hawkins, Missions of the 
Church of England, 378; Perry, A?nerican Episcopal Church, 398-399, citing 
Swift, Works (edited by Walter Scott), xv. 295, 308, xvi. 48. See also the 
life of Swift, in his Works, i. 98. 



92 ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 

garded it as a sinecure and a last resource in case he could 
get nothing better. On January 12, 1708-9, Swift wrote to 
Colonel Hunter : " Vous savez que — Monsieur Addison notre bon 
ami est fait secretaire d'etat tflrlande ; and unless you make 
haste over and get my Virginia bishoprick, he will persuade 
me to go with him, for the Vienna project is off ; which is a 
great disappointment to the design I had of displaying my 
politics at the Emperor's Court" x On March 22 of the same 
year he wrote : " Being not able to make my friends in the 
ministry consider my merits or their promises enough to keep 
me here, ... all my hopes now terminate in my bishoprick of 
Virginia." 2 After Hunter became governor of New York, he 
wrote to his friend intimating that he should like to have him 
occupy the bishopric for which he had purchased a seat by 
order of the Society. 3 But the plan dropped here. And so too 
did the project of Archbishop Sharpe, which miscarried because 
the Bishop of London was not present at the meeting. 4 

The attempts made by clergymen resident in the colonies to 
obtain one or more bishops to take charge of their church 
affairs will now be considered. With one exception I know 
of no plea from this source before the foundation of the 
Society for Propagating the Gospel, in 1701. This excep- 
tion is to be found in the work called Virginia's Cure, writ- 
ten in 1662. The author attributes the low state of religion 
in Virginia, not to the absence of a bishop, but to the scattered 
condition of the population, and beseeches the Bishop of Lon- 
don's aid in securing a closer population and more city life. 

1 Swift, Works, xv. 295-296. 

2 Ibid. 308. In a note on the same page we find the following statement : 
" There was a scheme on foot at this time to make Dr. Swift Bishop of Vir- 
ginia with power to ordain priests and deacons for all our colonies in Amer- 
ica, and to parcel out that country into deaneries, parishes, chapels, &c, and 
to recommend and present thereto ; which would have been of the greatest 
use to the protestant religion in that country had it taken effect." 

3 Hunter to Swift, March 1, 1712-1713: "I have purchased a seat for a 
bishop, and by orders from the Society have given directions to prepare it for 
his reception. You once upon a day gave me hopes of seeing you there. It 
would be to me no small relief to have so good a friend to complain to {Ibid. 
xvi. 48). 

4 See above, p. 50. 



TALBOT'S APPEAL FOR A BISHOP. 93 

He suggests, however, as the fifth of seven means by which 
the condition of the Virginia church might be improved, " that 
there being divers persons already in the Colony fit to serve the 
Church in the office of deacon, a Bishop be sent over, so soon 
as there should be a City for his See, as for the other needs of 
that Church, so also, that after due Probation and Examination, 
such persons may be ordained Deacons and their Duty and 
Service be appointed by the Bishop." 2 Yet this is a bare 
suggestion and is not insisted on. Not only is it the sole re- 
quest for a bishop coming from the colonies in the seventeenth 
century, but it is one of the very few that came from the south- 
ern colonies during the whole colonial period. 

It may safely be said that it is with the foundation of the 
Society for Propagating the Gospel that earnest efforts be- 
gan to be made for the establishment of bishops in North 
America. The first proposal seems to have come from Dr. 
Thomas Bray, 2 who even received some contributions in answer 
to his appeal; but the matter resulted in nothing. Next to Dr. 
Bray, the most energetic and zealous among the early mission- 
aries was the Reverend John Talbot, who, with his fellow-worker 
George Keith, may be regarded as the pioneer of the Society in 
the middle colonies. Beginning in 1702, 3 Talbot continued to 
agitate the question upon every possible occasion. Out of his 
many appeals the following may be selected as one of the most 
characteristic : " The poor Church," he writes in a letter to 
the Society, dated September 1, 1703, "has nobody upon the 
spot to comfort or confirm her children ; nobody to ordain 
several that are willing to serve, were they authorized, for the 
work of the Ministry. Therefore they fall back again into the 
herd of the Dissenters, rather than they will be at the Hazard 
and Charge to goe as far as England for orders : so that we 

1 Virginia's Cure, an Advisive Narrative, 21. 

2 Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 396. Bray's Memorial, represent- 
ing the Present State of Religion, on the Continent of North America, in which 
he agitated the subject of an American episcopate, appeared in 1700-1701. 
Although the Society was not definitely established till June, 1701, Bray had 
some time earlier begun his efforts toward organizing it. 

3 Talbot's first appeal was sent from New York in 1702. See Hawkins, 
Missions of the Church of England, 376. 



94 ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 

have seen several Counties, Islands, and Provinces, which have 
hardly an orthodox minister, am'st them, which might have 
been supply'd, had we been so happy as to see a Bishop or 
Suffragan Apud Americanos." 1 It will be noticed that Talbot 
desired a bishop for purely spiritual purposes, such as ordain- 
ing, confirming, and the like offices. Though it is not certain 
just how, in his opinion, a bishop would be supported, it would 
seem, from a letter written to his colleague Keith, in regard to 
one John Livingstone's purpose to go to England to seek an 
episcopal consecration, that he regarded a contribution of 
tenths from the clergy as ample means for a bishop's mainten- 
ance. 2 But it is difficult to see how a handful of ministers, 
most of them depending upon a stipend from the Society, could 
furnish for their diocesan " a provision as honorable as some 
in Europe." 

Talbot did not confine his efforts to writing; in 1706 he 
went to England to press his cause in person. 3 Evidently he 
received some encouragement there, for on his return to Amer- 
ica he selected a house for a bishop's seat. 4 In 171 2 the 
Society closed the bargain, and directed that the residence be 
prepared for habitation, 5 an action which is explained by the 

1 Society for Propagating the Gospel, Digest of the Records, 1 1 . Prob- 
ably by an " orthodox minister " he means one of the Church of England. 

2 October 20, 1705: "Mr. John Livingston designs, it seems, to go for 
England next year ; he seems to be the fittest person that America affords 
for the office of a suffragan, and several persons, both of the Laity and Clergy, 
have wished he were the man ; and if my Lord of London thought fit to 
authorize him, several of the Clergy both of this Province and of Maryland 
have said they would pay their tenths unto him, as my Lord of London's Vice- 
gerent, whereby the Bishop of America might have as honorable provision as 
some in Europe." (Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 58.) 

3 Ibid. 59. 

4 Letter to the secretary of the Society, June 30, 1709, Ibid. 63. 

5 See Evan Evans and Talbot to the Society, December 4, 1712, Ibid. 
65-66. This was the house to which Hunter alludes in his letter to Swift 
(above, p. 92, and note 3). An account of the affair may be found in the 
sermon of William Fleetwood, bishop of St. Asaph's, before the Society, 
February 16, 1710-11, printed in the Society's Abstract, 1709-1710 (London, 
1711), pp. 22-28. In the Abstract for 1713, p. 44, there is a statement that 
the Society, through the agency of Governor Robert Hunter, has obtained 
from John Tathouse the house at Burlington for ^600 sterling. 



EVAN EVANS'S REPRESENTATION TO THE SOCIETY. 95 

hopes which it then had of obtaining, by the aid of Queen Anne, 
some sort of episcopal establishment. These hopes were blasted 
by the queen's death in 171 5. 

Meantime, Talbot's endeavors were supplemented by those of 
his brother missionaries, acting both singly and collectively. In 
1705, for example, fourteen clergymen assembled at Burlington, 
New Jersey, and sent to the archbishops and bishops a petition 
setting forth their needs. 1 Assigning, in addition to the consid- 
erations ordinarily urged, such as the need of some one to 
officiate at confirmations and ordinations, several reasons of 
a more special nature, they appeared to contemplate an estab- 
lishment of a kind more likely to arouse opposition among the 
dissenters than that usually projected by the missionaries in this 
period. 

Two years later, however, in 1707, Evan Evans, in a letter 
entitled "The State of the Church in Pennsylvania, most 
humbly offered to the Venerable Society for the Propagation of 
the Gospel in Foreign Parts," brought out some distinctively 
new points. His main reason for wanting a bishop was to have 
an officer capable of deciding in the disputes between clergymen ; 
since they, standing on a level with regard to authority, could 
not very well manage such things for themselves. He divides 
his argument into three main heads. Starting with the general 
proposition, " I take it for granted, that the ends of a mission 
can never be rightly answered without establishing the discipline 

1 " The presence and assistance of a Suffragan Bishop is most needful to 
ordain such persons as are fit to be called to serve in the sacred ministry of 
the Church. We have been deprived of the advantages that might have been 
received of some Presbyterian and Independent Ministers that formerly were, 
and of others that are still willing to conform and receive the holy character, 
for want of a Bishop to give it. The baptized want to be confirmed. The 
presence is necessary in the councils of these provinces to prevent the incon- 
veniences which the Church labours under by the influences which seditious 
men's counsels have upon the publick administration and the opposition which 
they make to the good inclinations of well affected persons ; he is wanted not 
only to govern and direct us but to cover us from the malignant effects of 
those misrepresentations that have been made by some persons empowered to 
admonish and inform against us who indeed want admonition themselves " 
(Society's Digest, 744, citing its Journals, Appendix A, 508-513). Cf. 
Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 377-378. 



$6 ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 

as well as the doctrine of the Church of England in those parts," 
he argues as follows : first, that a bishop is needed to supply and 
ordain ministers, for only a resident bishop can judge of the 
fitness of a candidate to serve in a particular region, he only can 
know the " true state of ecclesiastical things or persons," and 
can " best see into all the secret causes and springs of things " ; 
secondly, that " a Bishop is absolutely necessary to preside over 
the American clergy, and oblige them to do their duty and to 
live in peace and unity with one another. . . . Wheresoever 
Presbytery is established," he continues, "there they have the 
face and appearance of an Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and author- 
ity after their way to resort to upon all occasions. But our 
clergy in America are left destitute of any advantage of this 
kind, and are exposed to the mercy of their very often unrea- 
sonable passions and appetites ; which are by many degrees the 
worst masters they can truckle with." Here, and in one place 
earlier in the same letter, where he asserts that there is not the 
least shadow of authority to keep the clergy within bounds, 
Evans plainly disregards the fact that the Bishop of London's 
authority had any efficacy in the colonies. His Lordship's 
authority certainly was weak ; but Evans may have exaggerated 
a bit, using purposely strong expressions to add emphasis to his 
argument. 

His third point is that the clergy themselves are handicapped 
for want of a bishop, since, being dependent upon the laity for 
support, 1 they cannot, even in cases of the grossest irregularities 
of living, denounce the leaders among their people without the 
aid of episcopal sanction. In reference to a possible official 
censure of immoral laymen, he says : " But now nothing of this 
kind is heard of or attempted there, and men commit adultery, 
polygamy, incest, and a thousand other crimes, of which the 
minister can hardly admonish them in private, without manifest 
hazard and disadvantage to himself, because there is no ecclesi- 
astical jurisdiction established in those parts, and though there 
were, there are no laws in being, which make the inhabitants of 
those countries liable and obnoxious to it. No statute of the 

1 This was, of course, not true in the case of the missionaries of the 
Society. 



BISHOP COMPTON'S OBSERVATIONS. 97 

28 H. VIII. ; no writ de excommunicato capiendo, to oblige 
spiritual delinquents to submit to the censures of the Church 
for the good of their own souls." What Evans here says is 
perfectly true ; but the crimes which he enumerates were under 
the competence of the secular courts, and could be handled 
much more safely and surely by those bodies than by any eccle- 
siastical authorities. Such assertions as these of Evans would, 
had they been uttered half a century later, have raised a storm 
of abuse among the laity not only of the Independent, but even 
the Episcopal churches. This is, as a matter of fact, one of the 
few instances in which a petitioner for a bishop ventured to advo- 
cate strongly the disciplinary side of the office, particularly in its 
relations to the laity. To be sure, only the laymen of the Church 
of England were meant ; but they were, as a rule, as adverse to 
ecclesiastical oversight in matters temporal, both public and pri- 
vate, as the members of any other religious body. Finally, at 
the close of his other arguments, Evans adds that a bishop is 
needed for the exercise of the office of confirmation. 1 

It is interesting to note that, in the same year in which Evans 
wrote this letter, — indeed, perhaps because of the letter, — the 
Bishop of London drew up a series of observations concerning 
the advisability of providing a suffragan for America. Agree- 
ing with the Society's missionaries, he thinks that a bishop 
would be a proper remedy for the disordered condition of the 
Church of England there. But what sort of a bishop ? An 
absolute one ? Such a one would, he thinks, be impracticable 
for several reasons, of which the chief is that the colonists would 
not suffer such control. 2 The cause of this opposition, however, 
he ascribes not to the fear of a politico-ecclesiastical tyranny, — 
the time was hardly ripe for that, — but to the apprehension 
that a bishop clothed with full powers would exercise too close 

1 Hazard, Pennsylvania Register, iii. 337-340 (May 30, 1829). This is one 
of a series of articles on the history of the Episcopal church in Pennsylvania, 
originally printed in the Episcopal Magazine. 

2 He says of the attempt in " K. Charles y e 2 ds time," that "there came over 
Petitions and addresses with all violence imaginably." Presumably he alludes 
to the attempt made in 1662 (see above, pp. 89, 90) ; but there seems to be 
no record of any such resistance as the bishop alludes to. We have seen the 
probable causes why that attempt failed (above, p. 90, notes). 

7 



98 ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 

a supervision over the lives and morals of the clergy and the 
laity, which were, in many cases, in a very bad condition. For 
this reason his lordship advocates a suffragan, a functionary 
who would be too much like a commissary, to whose office they 
were already accustomed, to excite much aversion. Such a 
suffragan, having the necessary Episcopal orders, could, he 
argues, perform all the needed offices, such as confirmation, 
ordination, and consecration, and would thus have all the 
necessary requisites without any of the disadvantages. The 
implication seems to be that a suffragan might be tried as an 
experiment; if the experiment succeeded, well and good, and 
perhaps later an absolute bishop might be substituted ; if it 
failed, the suffragan might be quietly withdrawn. It does not 
appear that this proposition was much considered at the time, 
although afterward many of the petitioners made their pleas 
for a suffragan rather than for an absolute bishop. 1 

All the applications which have thus far been considered 
came from the middle colonies ; but later, after the matter 
had been taken up by the Society for Propagating the 
Gospel, the efforts of the missionaries of the middle colonies 
began to be reenforced by those of the New England brethren, 
particularly those in Boston, the only place in Massachusetts 
where the Church of England had as yet gained any definite 
foothold. The first New England petition, dated December 8, 
1713, 2 came from the ministers, church wardens, and vestry of 
King's Chapel. Not only did they make representation to the 
Society, assuring that body how gladly they welcomed its efforts 
to secure a bishop for them, but they also sent a "Humble 
Address to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty." 3 All evi- 

1 New York Documents, v. 29. The whole document is reprinted below, 
Appendix A, No. iii. 

2 For the text of the representation, see Foote, Annals of King's Chapel, 
i. 224; Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 1st Series, vii. 215. 

3 Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 1st Series, vii. 215-216. These 
petitions were never delivered, having been in some way intercepted. They 
are said to have been found among Sir Charles Hobby's papers by Mr. Mason, 
his administrator, and to have been sent by him to Boston. The members 
of the Episcopal party were endeavoring to obtain the ascendancy in New 
England, as appears from a letter of the Reverend Samuel Myles, in which 



PETITIONS FROM THE NORTHERN COLONIES. 99 

dence goes to show that these representations and addresses 
owed their origin to Governor Nicholson. 1 The movement for 
bishops seems to have been fairly general at this time ; for 
there are records of simultaneous petitions from New York, 
New England, and Rhode Island asking for bishops for the 
northern colonies as a measure against the " Whigs and 
fanaticks " who "swarme[d] then in those parts." 2 Prominent 
members of the episcopate in the mother country were in 
correspondence with some of the leading Independent ministers 
in New England, seeking in this way to feel the temper of the 
clergy and laity of the various sects that would probably be 
hostile to such an innovation as the introduction of bishops. 3 

he writes, under date February 17, 1713-14: "I am humbly of opinion, the 
church here, and also in other parts of this province, would increase much 
more under a Governor that was a constant communicant thereof, from whom 
we might reasonably expect all requisite protection and encouragement" 
{Ibid. 216-217). 

1 See a letter from Nicholson to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which he 
says that "unless a Bishop be sent in a short time, the Church of England will 
rather diminish than increase in North America" (Hawkins, Missions of the 
Church of England, 379, citing the Society's MS. Letters, 94). 

2 J. Redknap to Sir Charles Hobby and Jonathan Jekyll (London, April 27, 
1714), in Foote, Annals of King *s Chapel, i. 226-227. 

3 Bishop Kennett to Dr. Benjamin Colman, September 15, 1713 : " It is our 
being misinformed and misguided in Some Ways," he says, " that increases 
our Desires of having Bishops settled in those foreign Parts committed to our 
Care ; that they may judge better of Things and Persons within their own 
view. . . . But alas, there is so much of an Ecclesiastical and of a Civil 
Nature in this Affair, and such a Concurrency required here at Home and 
Abroad, that what Issue it may come to we are yet uncertain, — And whether 
at this juncture we should make a lit Choice of discreet Men for this Office ; 
I dare not pretend to guess. — I hope your Churches would not be jealous of it, 
they being out of our Line, and therefore beyond the Cognizance of any Over- 
seers to be sent from hence. What Time may do, with the Spirit of Knowledge 
and Charity to make the English in America all of one Heart, and of Way of 
Discipline and Worship, I recommend to your Prayers, and add my own " 
(Turell, Life of Colman, 128). "Which needful Provisions," he says in 
another letter to the same person, March 13, 17 16-17, alluding to the pro- 
posed establishment, " will not break in upon your national Rites and Customs, 
at least no other Way than by laying a Foundation (we will hope, and you will 
agree) for the Union of all Protestants in some future Age, when Charity and 
Peace shall prevail above Interest and Passion " (Ibid. 130). 



LofC. 



100 ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 

So much for the movement concerning the work of individ- 
uals and groups of individuals in the early eighteenth century. 
It will now be necessary to see what had in the meantime 
been accomplished by the Society for Propagating the Gospel, 
to which most of the petitions for a suffragan had been referred. 
As early as 1703 a committee of the Society formulated a state- 
ment entitled "The Case of Suffragan Bishops briefly pro- 
posed," which was referred to the attorney general without 
result. 1 This was the first in a series of steps culminating in 
a plan which seemed on the verge of success when the death 
of Queen Anne, who had finally agreed to take the matter in 
hand, checked its progress. The following memorial will serve 
as a sample of the Society's addresses to the throne : " We 
cannot but take this opportunity further to represent to your 
Majesty, with the greatest humility, the earnest and repeated 
desires, not only of the Missionaries, but of divers other consid- 
erable persons that are in communion with our excellent Church, 
to have a Bishop settled in your American plantations (which 
we humbly conceive to be very useful and necessary for estab- 
lishing the gospel in those parts), that they may be the better 
united among themselves than at present they are, and more 
able to withstand the designs of their enemies ; that there may 
be Confirmations, which, in their present state, they cannot 
have the benefit of, and that an easy and speedy care may be 
taken of all the other affairs of the Church, which is much 
increased in those parts, and to which, through your Majesty's 
gracious protection and encouragement, we trust that yet a 
greater addition will daily be made." 2 This memorial was 

1 This case refers to a revival of suffragans (statute 26 Henry VIII., c. 13), 
and asks (1) whether the bishops suffragan of Colchester, Dover, Nottingham, 
and Hull might not be used for foreign parts ; (2) whether archbishops and 
bishops would incur penalties for consecrating bishops with no more than 
common jurisdiction; (3) whether the queen, by statute Edward VI., c. 2 
(for the election of bishops), might not appoint foreign suffragans. See the 
Society's Digest, 743-744, citing its Journal, November 17-December 15, 1704, 
Appendix, 258 ; Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 139, 
note 3, citing the Account of the Society published in 1706. 

2 Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 377-378 ; Protestant Epis- 
copal Historical Society, Collections, i. 140. 



THE EFFORTS OF THE SOCIETY. IOI 

reenforced by a sermon before the Society in 171 2 by Bishop 
Kennett, who urged the need of " discipline and Episcopal gov- 
ernment " to be " there settled to compleat the face of decency 
and order." Apparently neither of these pleas gained the 
desired attention; for, March 27, 1713, a petition for bishops, 
entitled "A Representation to be laid before Her Majesty, for 
procuring Bishops and Bishopricks in America," was reported 
from a committee. It was read, amended, and ordered to be 
delivered to the Archbishop of York, with instructions that it be 
presented to the queen after the seal of the Society had been 
affixed. 1 Queen Anne finally decided to grant the request of 
the Society ; and a bill was drafted and about to be introduced 
into Parliament, when her Majesty's death put a stop to further 
proceedings. 2 

Not discouraged by this set-back, the Society, on June 12, 
171 5, sent a petition to the new king. It was never considered, 
however, perhaps (as Hawkins suggests) because of the advent 
to power of Sir Robert Walpole and the Whigs, and of the 
Tory rising in 1715. 3 This was the last attempt made by 
the Society for Propagating the Gospel, as a body, to induce 
the crown to establish bishops in America. 

After this the missionaries in America seem to have been 
too much discouraged to send many more petitions for some 
years to come, although there is record that a few were sent 
from time to time. Chief among these was an address, dated 
June 2, 1 71 8, from the clergy and vestries of Christ Church, 
Philadelphia, and St. Anne's, Burlington, and some others. 
The petitioners based their plea on the customary grounds, 
such as the need of some one to consecrate churches and to 
perform the offices of confirmation and ordination. With regard 
to the latter function they said : " For the want of that sacred 

1 See the Society's Report, 1 713, in Foote, Annals of King's Chapel, i. 222- 
223; also its Abstract, 1713-1714, pp. 27-28, and 1714-1715, pp. 52-54. See 
also Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 380; Protestant Episcopal 
Historical Society, Collections, i. 140-141. 

2 Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 141. 

3 Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 380-383, citing the Society's 
MS. Letters, x. 28. 



102 ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 

power which is inherent to your apostolick [office] the vacancies 
which daily happen in our ministry cannot be supplied for a 
considerable time from England, whereby many congregations 
are not only become desolate, and the light of the gospel 
therein extinguished, but great encouragement is thereby given 
to sectaries of all sorts which abound and increase amongst us, 
and, some of them pretending to what they call the power of 
ordination, the country is filled with fanatic teachers, debauch- 
ing the good inclinations of many poor souls who are left 
destitute of any instruction or ministry." 2 This plea, like all 
those made by the Society for many years to come, obtained 
no encouragement from the authorities in England. 

The majority of the petitions thus far considered came from 
the missionaries in the middle colonies. Soon, however, a move- 
ment was begun in New England, — or one might better say 
in Connecticut, — which never ceased till the consecration of 
Samuel Seabury as Bishop of Connecticut in 1784. The first 
step was taken by the Reverend George Pigot, who had come to 
Connecticut as a missionary in 1722. According to his repre- 
sentation, "besides the deficiency of a governor in the Church, 
to inspect the regular lives of the clergy, to ordain, confirm, 
consecrate churches, and the like . . . there . . . [was], also, 
a sensible want of this superior order, as a sure bulwark against 
the many heresies that are already brooding in this part of 
the world." 2 This step was only a forerunner; the deter- 
mined effort on the part of the New England episcopacy did 
not make itself felt until the passing over of Cutler, Johnson, 
Brown, and Wetmore from the Presbyterian to the Episcopal 
communion. This event in itself had a great influence in 
strengthening the already latent apprehension of the New 
Englanders as to the dangers of episcopacy; and the efforts 
which the new converts made to secure the settlement of native 
bishops certainly did nothing to allay the apprehension. In a 

1 Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 384-385, citing the Society's 
MS. Letters, xiv. 44; Hazard, Pennsylvania Register, iii. 382 (June 13, 1892). 
This was followed, April, 1729, by another petition of the same sort (cf. Ibid. 

383). 

2 Beardsley, Episcopal Church in Connecticut, i. 50-51. 



GIBSON'S INFLUENCE SOLICITED. 103 

later chapter an attempt will be made to follow the constantly- 
increasing hostility between the two communions, which finally 
broke into a controversy that was only ended by the War of 
Independence, which it helped to promote. 

As early as 1723 Johnson realized and commented on the 
need of bishops resident in the colonies ; and according to his 
biographer, Chandler, 1 he succeeded in interesting Bishop Gib- 
son in the project, particularly after the rumor that Talbot and 
Welton had received Episcopal consecration from the non-juring 
bishops. 2 The evidence, however, is hardly sufficient to prove 
that Gibson took any decided steps to further the plan, although 
Johnson in one letter to him suggests that he use his influence 
with the king for that purpose. 3 

Dr. Johnson was seconded in his efforts by Dr. Cutler and by 
the other New England clergy both singly and collectively. 4 

1 Chandler, Life of Johnson, 38-39. 

2 The subject of non-juring bishops in America is very fully treated by the 
Reverend John Fulton, in Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 541 ff. For 
another account, see Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 
passim. 

3 See a letter from Johnson to Gibson, January 28, 1724, in Hawkins, Mis- 
sions of the Church of England, 386-387. Chandler, in his Life of Samtiel 
Johnson, says that Bishop Gibson sought to interest the ministry in the 
project, but failed. The two following extracts indicate that some such 
proceeding on the part of the bishop was at least expected. The first extract 
is from a letter of Johnson : " It is a great satisfaction to us," he writes, " to 
understand that one of your Lordship's powerful interest and influence is en- 
gaged in so good a work as that of sending bishops into America, and that 
there is nothing you desire more or would be at greater pains to compass. 
This gives us the greater hopes that by your Lordship's pious endeavors, under 
the blessing of God and the benign influence of our most gracious King, it 
may at length be accomplished. And we humbly hope that the address and 
representation of the state of religion here which we have lately presumed to 
offer may, in Your Lordship's hands, be of some service in this affair. I pray 
God give it success " (Beardsley, Life of Johnson, 56-57). The second is a 
letter from the Reverend J. Berriman to Johnson, dated February 17, 1725, in 
which he says : " We hear of two Nonjuring Bishops (Dr. Welton for one) 
who are gone into America ; and it is said the Bishop of London will send one 
more of a different stamp as an antidote against them" {Ibid. 55). 

4 See Dr. Cutler to the secretary of the Society, January 4, 1723-24, in 
Perry, Historical Collections, iii. (Massachusetts) 142-144; Hawkins, Missions 
of the Church of England, 387-388. 



104 ATTEMPTS TO OBTA/JV AJV AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 

The subject was discussed in a convention held at Newport, 
Rhode Island, July 21, 1725, and in another at Boston, July 20, 
1727; and addresses were sent to the king and to the Society 
for Propagating the Gospel. 1 The congregations of King's 
Chapel and Christ Church also continued to interest them- 
selves in the project. At a joint meeting of the ministers, 
wardens, vestries, and congregations of these two churches, held 
in King's Chapel, August 30, 1727, for the purpose of voting an 
address to George II. on the death of his father and his own acces- 
sion, the following resolution was adopted : " That an Address 
be made to his Majesty for a Bishop, and that the said address be 
sent to the Bishop of London within twelve months, and that 
the persons who signed the address to his Majesty shall likewise 
sign the address for a Bishop, unless otherwise determined by 
the Bishop of London." This was signed by two hundred and 
nine members. It had been the intention of some of them 
to send an address at once to the king, but it was decided 
to wait and get the mind of their diocesan upon the matter. 
They also took care to make it plain that their desire to have 
a resident bishop arose from no dissatisfaction with Bishop 
Gibson. 2 A " Humble Address " of several of the clergymen of 

1 Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 387-388 ; the Society's 
Digest, 443 ; Perry, Historical Collections, iii. (Massachusetts) 175-178, where 
the whole address of the Rhode Island convention to Bishop Gibson is given, 
together with its letter to the secretary. Harris and Mossom refused to attend 
the convention, for reasons which they gave in a letter to their diocesan, 
December 17, 1725 : " It arises from a sense of humble duty and modesty," said 
they among other things, " that we do not expressly pray a Bishop may be 
fix 1 among us, because you, and not we, are the most competent judge of what 
will make most for the service of the Church in general, — our being at once 
cut off or still continued a part of the See of London " (Foote, Annals of King's 
Chapel, i. 338-339; Perry, Historical Collections, iii. 200). It is doubtful, 
however, whether this consideration influenced Harris so much as other rea- 
sons, chief among which was a personal quarrel in which he was then involved. 
For an account of the affair, in which John Checkley was the main figure, see 
Foote, Annals, i. ch. viii. ; Perry, A?tierican Episcopal Church, i. ch. xv., and 
some documents in his Historical Collections, iii. passim. For the convention 
of July 20, 1727, see Perry, Historical Collections, iii. 224-227 ; Foote, Annals, 
i. 340. 

2 Foote, Annals of King^s Chapel, i. 351-352. 



THE ATTITUDE OF THE SOUTHERN COLONIES. 105 

New England, dated December 12, 1727 (probably the one in 
question) was later received by the Board of Trade, but was laid 
aside with the indorsement, " The Bishop of London desired 
that it might not be inserted in the Gazette." It has been thought 
that its suppression was due to the influence of Walpole. 1 

Meantime, although, as we have seen, the southern colonies 
were in general opposed to the introduction of bishops, some 
steps were taken in Maryland toward the attainment of that 
end. Among the few persons in that colony who desired a na- 
tive episcopate were the commissaries, who in answer to Bishop 
Gibson's queries in 1724 suggested, among other things, the 
urgent need of a bishop. 2 Several other indications tend to 
show that the project was seriously thought of at this time. 3 
Indeed, in 1727 the Bishop of London sought to make the Rev- 
erend Mr. Colbatch, a Maryland clergyman, his suffragan ; but 
the courts of Maryland checked the attempt by issuing a writ 
of non exeat regno. This put an end to any attempts to 
establish a bishop in the southern colonies, for the next forty 
years. 4 

In the face of all manner of discouragements, Johnson, in 
New England, continued his efforts with unflagging energy. 
On April 5, 1732, after a conference with the dissenters, he sub- 
mitted to Bishop Gibson a series of six proposals, the gist of 
which is as follows : since the attorney and solicitor generals 
have decided that the establishment does not extend to Amer- 

1 Palfrey, New England, iv. 479, citing British Colonial Papers ; cf. Foote, 
Annals of King's Chapel, i. 353, with note 1. Evidently the Bishop was 
friendly to the cause; for in 1738 we find him "laboring much, but in vain, 
with the court and the ministry, and endeavouring to induce the archbishop, 
who had credit with both, to join him in trying what could be done to get a 
bishop sent into the plantations. 1 ' His effort failed because Sir Robert Wal- 
pole was not favorable. See Wilberforce, Protestant Episcopal Church, 122. 

2 Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Maryland) 231-232; Hawks, Ecclesias- 
tical Contributions, ii. (Maryland) 172. 

3 See a reference to the subject in a letter from Commissary Wilkinson to 
Bishop Gibson, September 9, 1724, in Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Mary- 
land) 244-246. In the Fulham MSS. is a carefully elaborated plan for 
settling bishops in America which Dr. Bray, formerly commissary of Maryland, 
drew up and sent to Gibson, October 28, 1723. 

4 Hawks, Ecclesiastical Co?itributions, ii. (Maryland) 196. 



106 ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN' AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 

ica, he would suggest some practical proposals for an episco- 
pate ; he ventures to do this for the reason that many are so 
destitute that they will submit even to a Church of England 
establishment ; he would insist only upon essentials and would 
advise the greatest leniency in the matter of non-essentials. In 
spite of his assurances, some of the statements made by him 
would very readily have excited suspicion among his brethren of 
the Independent persuasions. Take, for example, the following 
suggestion : " Is it impossible for the English Dominions in 
America to be provided for with one or two Bishops, and those 
subject to the Lord Bishop of London as Archbishop of the 
Plantations abroad . . . and is it impossible that such a provi- 
sion might be made without breaking in upon the interest of 
the governors and governments as they now stand ? Though, 
indeed, it would be much happier for the Church, especially 
unless we had a Bishop, if the charters were taken away ; and 
most people begin to think, since they have got into such a 
wretched, mobbish way of management, that it would be best 
for the people themselves." * A few expressions like this reach- 
ing the ears of the inhabitants of New England might well have 
made them tremble for the continuance not only of their ecclesi- 
astical, but even of their political, independence. 2 

A most curious notion which gained currency about this time 
was that the establishment of bishops in America would lead 
to the independence of the colony. Moreover, it was maintained 
that this consideration influenced the English government to 
continue in its refusal to take any steps toward the furtherance 
of the plan. There seems to be no contemporary evidence for 
this view except in the writings of Dr. Johnson and in Arch- 
bishop Seeker's refutation of the notion. Furthermore, such an 
idea is absurd from the facts of the case. The Episcopalians 
were, at least before the outbreak of the excitement which 

1 Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Docume7its, i. 153-154. 

2 But the ecclesiastical authorities were unable to prevail with the officers of 
state ; compare the following sentence from the Bishop of Gloucester to John- 
son, March 9, 1735-36 : " My own interest, to be sure, is inconsiderable ; but 
the united interest of the Bishops here is not powerful to effect so reasonable 
and right a thing as the sending of some Bishops into America " (Beardsley, 
Episcopal Church in Connecticut, i. 101-102). 



THE AMERICAN EPISCOPATE AND INDEPENDENCE. \QJ 

culminated in the Revolution, among the most loyal subjects 
of the English government in the American colonies. If any 
danger of independence was to be feared as a result of episcopal 
establishment, it would come, not from the Episcopalians with 
their native episcopate, but from the Independents, roused to 
opposition by the apprehension of what they would regard as 
an attempt to impose uppn them the burden of the Anglican 
ecclesiastical system. If any such reason as that noticed above 
was alleged by the home government for not granting an episco- 
pate to its petitioners, it was only a pretext for a refusal resting 
upon quite different grounds. 

Yet Dr. Johnson apparently believed that this notion was 
really fixed in the minds of the English government ; for in his 
letters he repeatedly assured his diocesan and others that it 
was unreasonable to conclude that the attempt to obtain bishops 
for America proceeded from a desire for independence, since, 
indeed, the reverse was true. 1 Any one inclined to the view 
supposed to be held by the English government would have felt 
the untenability of any such idea after a perusal of Johnson's 
letters to his English correspondents. Take, for example, one 
written in 1742 to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which he 
says : " An English Bishop would be the most effectual means 
to secure the people from that [the Moravian] and every other 
faction and delusion, as well as vastly to enlarge the Church. 
I have been informed that the chief pretense against sending 
Bishops has been an apprehension of these colonies effecting 
an independency on our mother-country. This is indeed a most 
groundless apprehension ; but certainly a regular Episcopacy, 
even subordinate to the Bishop of London, would be so far 
from this that it would be one of the most effectual means to 
secure our dependency." 2 Or again: "It has always been a 
fact," he says, " & is obvious in the nature of the thing, that 
anti-Episcopal are of course anti-monarchical principles. So 
that the danger of our effecting Independency can never come 
from a regular Episcopacy, but would naturally flow from the 
want of it; — from that turbulent outrageous spirit which en- 

1 See letter cited, Beardsley, Life of Johnson, 94. 
2 Beardsley, Episcopal Church in Connecticut, i. 144. 



108 ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 

thusiasm is apt to inspire men with. — To me therefore My 
Lord, there is nothing apparently more evident, than that a 
regular Episcopal Settlement would be so far from promoting 
a spirit of Independency, that it would be the most effectual 
means that could be devised to secure a Dependence on our 
Mother Country; especially at this Juncture when we are so 
puffed up with our late success at Cape Breton, that our 
Enthusiasts are almost apt to think themselves omnipotent. . . . 
But considering their Temper and Spirit, I should rather think 
a great Reason for it, as a necessary means to check their 
Impetuosity, & to prevent what I know will otherwise be the 
Effect of their Present Elevation which prompts them to think 
that they having so much merit, may persecute and tyrannize 
over the Church here as much as they please & none will say 
to them why do ye so ? Instances which we have lately felt in 
this Colony, and more of them we expect every day." 1 Obvi- 
ously, opinions such as these were calculated to stir up suspicions 
in the minds of the anti-prelatical New Englanders, and were 
certain forerunners of that great struggle concerning the estab- 
lishment of native bishops which was soon to come. 

Meantime, what was going on in England ? From the time 
of their failure to secure the attention of King George I. and 
his ministers, the members of the Society for Propagating the 
Gospel appear to have done very little to further their plans 
for the introduction of native bishops. This inaction may 
have been due to their despair of accomplishing anything in 
that direction ; or, what is less likely, they may have felt that 
under the capable administration of Bishop Gibson, the clergy 
and people of the Church of England in the colonies were 
being sufficiently cared for. At all events, from the death of 
Queen Anne until about 1740 we find among the Society's 
papers, whether abstracts or sermons, no record of the matter 
or allusion to it. It was on February 20, 1740-41, that Thomas 
Seeker, then Bishop of Oxford, took occasion to reopen the 
subject in a sermon which he preached before the Society at its 
annual meeting in that year. In the opinion of at least one 

1 Fulham MSS. From a letter to Bishop Gibson, November 25, 1725, on 
hearing that he was again making an effort to secure an American episcopate. 



SECKER'S SERMON BEFORE THE SOCIETY. 109 

contemporary, this sermon was extremely significant. 1 The 
bishop's main arguments are the same as those used by all the 
petitioners in favor of an American episcopate. He also con- 
siders the supposed fear of the English government, and seeks 
to allay it quite after the fashion of Johnson. 2 

Seeker was answered by the Reverend Andrew Eliot, in a 
pamphlet entitled Remarks upon the Bishop of Oxford's Sermon. 
Eliot expresses the fear that if bishops were introduced, they 
would have to be supported out of the pockets of the colonists, 
by means of a tax levied by the provincial assemblies ; failing 
this, the influence of the English episcopate would be brought 
to bear to obtain an act of Parliament to secure a general impo- 
sition, in which case there could be no exemption, since the 
establishment once acknowledged would perforce extend to all 
the colonies. "We have been told," continues Eliot, "that 
'when any part of the English nation spread abroad into the 
colonies, as they continued a part of the nation, the law obliged 
them equally to the Church of England and to the Christian 
religion.' " 3 He rightly argues that, if such be the case, and if 
bishops be introduced, it would be unjust and impolitic to exempt 
New England from the support of an establishment which, if 
admitted to extend to one of the colonies, must extend to all of 

1 One who signs himself " A Man of Old England " says : " From the 
Sermon he preached February 20, 1741, it appears, the Bishop of Oxford, 
Dr. Seeker furnished the disclaimers against the North American Colonies 
with the root ideas of deforming and episcopising them " {London Chronicle, 
August 18, 1768). This statement is overdrawn; but certainly Seeker did 
much to revive in England an interest in the subject which had been on the 
wane for twenty years or more. 

2 " Nor would such an establishment," says Seeker, " encroach at all on 
the Present rights of the Civil Government in our Colonies or bring their 
dependence to any degree of that Danger, which some persons profess to 
apprehend so strongly on this Occasion, who would make no manner of 
scruple about doing other Things much more likely to destroy it ; who are 
not terrified in the least that such numbers there reject the Episcopal Order 
entirely ; nor would perhaps be greatly alarmed, were there ever so many to 
reject Religion itself: though evidently in Proportion as either is thrown off, 
all Dependence produced by it ceases of course 11 (the Society^ Abstract, 1741, 
pp. 27-29). 

3 Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, 2d Series, ii. 190-216. 



110 ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 

them, and must come from a bishop whose jurisdiction would 
include them all. Such a partiality could not but excite jealousy 
in all the unexempted colonies. The force of this argument is 
. evident from the known antipathy to episcopal control even in 
the colonies where the Church of England was established by 
provincial legislation. 

Although Eliot is a bit unjust in his suspicion of the motives 
of all those who had hitherto lent their aid to the cause of the 
American episcopate, yet his fear of what might come to pass 
in case the proposed establishment were once attained was a 
perfectly natural one. It was quite reasonable to suppose that 
the bishops, once established, would hardly be content to confine 
themselves to purely spiritual affairs, and to remain deprived of 
all the accompaniments of office which their episcopal brethren 
in England enjoyed. Moreover, it would be most certain that 
the English bishops would support their claims, for fear of offer- 
ing to the dissenters at home an example of an episcopate exist- 
ing without temporal power or property. But even if this were 
not so, even if the bishops on both sides of the water would have 
been perfectly content with a purely spiritual episcopate, the 
scheme would still. have been impracticable ; for under an estab- 
lishment of this sort the bishops would have had no more power 
to enforce their discipline than the commissaries had ; and the 
latter, as was admitted on all sides, had lamentably failed to 
answer the needs of their office. Although certain expressions 
of Johnson, Seeker, and others could hardly have been reassur- 
ing to the minds of those who stood for personal liberty and 
independence in the administration of their religious and politi- 
cal affairs, still, without questioning the motives of earnest mis- 
sionaries, filled with a laudable ambition for the extension of 
that form of religious worship which to their minds best 
answered the spiritual needs of mankind, one can see that the 
thing which they desired could not but have led to a further 
tightening upon the colonists of that governmental system from 
which they were gradually coming to extricate themselves. 

Probably to further the interest which Seeker sought to revive, 
Bishop Gibson, in 1745, shortly before his death, offered the king 
and council ^1000 toward the support of a bishop, in case one 



BEQUESTS FOR AN AMERICAN- EPISCOPATE. in 

should be sent over in his time. 1 This was one of several gifts 
which from time to time during the century had been made in 
aid of the cause. As early as 171 5 Archbishop Tennison left 
;£iooo for the maintenance of such bishop or bishops as might 
be sent to America. 2 In the same year a like sum was be- 
queathed to the Society by an unknown benefactor. These 
gifts were followed in 1720 and 1741 by two bequests of ^500 
from Dugald Campbell, Esq., and Lady Elizabeth Hastings 
respectively. 3 Although these contributions show that there 
were, among the English clergy and laity, some who were will- 
ing to aid the project with their financial support, yet the sum 
total of them all would hardly have been sufficient to maintain 
even one bishop. 

Looking back over the ground covered by this chapter, we 
may outline its broader features as follows : Laud, apparently 
as a step in the further development of his plan of extending 
the establishment to the American colonies, sought to settle a 
bishop in New England, but was prevented by a sudden turn of 
political affairs at home. During the Restoration period the 
English government made one or two abortive attempts with 
the same end in view. After the foundation of the Society 
for Propagating the Gospel, its missionaries took the matter 
earnestly in hand ; but they struggled in vain to enlist the effec- 
tive cooperation of the English government in their cause. The 
early movement for bishops was, at least in motive, void of all 
political connection, and was carried on almost exclusively from 
the northern and middle colonies, where the church was not es- 
tablished. 4 After the conversion of Cutler, Johnson, and their 
colleagues, the subject began to be more warmly and persist- 
ently agitated than ever before, and a political significance 

1 Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 139, note. 

2 The interest on this bequest was later given to Talbot, as the oldest of 
the colonial missionaries ; for, according to the will, such provision was to be 
made of the income until bishops should be introduced {Ibid. 79-80). 

3 See Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 383, 386 ; Protestant 
Episcopal Historical Society, Collections^ i. 79-80 ; and Seeker's Sermon, in the 
Society's Abstract, 1741, pp. 27-29. 

4 The case of Maryland (see above, p. 105) can hardly affect this generali- 
zation. 



112 ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN AN AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 

gradually crept into the discussions, particularly in the utterances 
of Samuel Johnson, and of Bishop Seeker, who came to his aid 
in 1 74 1. These two were, before many years, to be joined by 
a powerful ally in the person of Thomas Sherlock, who suc- 
ceeded to the see of London in 1748. The course of events 
during the period of his administration will now be considered. 



CHAPTER V. 

EXPIRATION OF THE BISHOP OF LONDON'S COMMISSION: 
SHERLOCK'S POLICY, 1748-1761. 

Thomas Sherlock, who succeeded Edmund Gibson in 1748 
and held the see till his death in 1761, we have already come to 
know as a severe critic of the scope of the jurisdictionary powers 
of the Bishop of London over the American plantations. He 
was the inaugurator of a new policy, which consisted in with- 
holding the ministrations of English bishops from the Episco- 
palians in the colonies for the purpose of forcing them to demand 
an episcopate of their own. In spite of his protestations to the 
contrary, there is good ground for believing that his action was 
influenced by political motives ; but in justice to him it should 
be said that he probably had no intention of deliberately seeking 
to force upon the colonies ecclesiastical superiors, with accom- 
panying civil powers which would encroach upon the indepen- 
dence which they had so long enjoyed. More likely he intended, 
by uniting the separate provinces under resident spiritual heads, 
to set a precedent for a political union which would gradually 
become more and more intertwined with the English church and 
state system. This was certainly the notion of many of his 
supporters on both sides of the water, some of whom went so 
far as to assert in after years that, had a colonial episcopate 
been established, the Revolution might have been averted. 1 

1 See Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, ch. xvii. Compare a 
letter from Chandler to the Society, January 15, 1766, in which, after speaking 
of the political situation that followed the passage of the Stamp Act, and of 
what he regards as the excesses of his countrymen, he says: "And yet this 
apology they are entitled to, y* the government has not taken much pains to 
instruct them better. If y e Interest of the Church of England in America had 
been made a National Concern from the beginning, by this time a general 
submission in y e Colonies to y e Mother Country in everything not sinful, 
might have been expected, not only for wrath, but for conscience' sake. And 
who can be certain but y 8 present rebellious disposition of y e Colonies is not 

8 



114 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

Whether we attach any weight to this theory or not, the fact 
is indisputable that, in the years from 1750 onward, as the 
chasm between the colonies and the mother country widened 
more and more, the establishment of an American episcopate 
was frequently suggested as an expedient for bridging it over. 

Sherlock, whatever may have been the motives which actu- 
ated him, began his agitation as early as the first year of his 
accession, when he wrote to Edward Weston from Wallington 
on September 9, 1748 : "The business of the diocese, and of the 
plantations (w ch last article is immense, and to be carryed on 
by foreign correspondence) sits heavy upon me." 1 Nor did he 
confine himself to mere expostulation ; for, as we learn from a 
letter to the Lords of Trade, dated February 19, 1759, he went 
to the king soon after he became Bishop of London, and laid 
before his Majesty the state of religion in the colonies and the 
need of a resident bishop there. The king consented to allow 
him to refer the matter to his ministers. After a number of 
futile attempts to obtain an interview with them, Sherlock again 
applied to the king, who gave his sanction to the calling of a 
meeting in Newcastle House, at which, however, nothing was 
done ; and finally the bishop brought the matter before the 
king in council, with a similar result. 2 

intended by Providence as a punishment for that Neglect ? Indeed, many 
wise and good persons, at home, have had y e Cause of Religion and y e Church 
here sincerely at heart, and y e Nation, whether sensible of it or not, is under 
great obligations to that Worthy Society, who by their indefatigable endeavors 
to propagate the Gospel and assist the Church, have, at the same time, and 
thereby, secured to y e State, as far as their influence could be extended, 
y e Loyalty and Fidelity of her American Children' 1 (A. H. Hoyt, Thomas 
Bradbury Chandler, in New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 
xxvii. 233, citing S.A.Clark, History of St. John's Church, 110-1 13, where 
the whole letter is given) . 

1 Royal Historical Manuscripts Commission, Tenth Report, Appendix i. 32c. 

2 Thus Sherlock made in all three applications to the government (cf. 
North Carolina Records, vi. 10-13). For his own account of the first stages 
of the proceedings, see his letter of 1749 to Dr. Johnson (Hawkins, Missions 
of the Church of England, 389-390, citing Chandler, Life of Johnson, Appendix, 
131-132), and his letter of May 1 1, 1751, to Dr. Doddridge (Hawkins, Missions, 
391-392, citing Doddridge's Correspondence and Diary, v. 201 ; Perry, His- 
torical Collections, i. (Virginia) 371-374, citing Fulham MSS.). His final 



SPENCER'S MISSION TO THE COLONIES. 115 

Such is a bald outline of Sherlock's early movements. It 
will now be necessary to go into the question somewhat more 
in detail, in order to discover just what springs he set in motion 
for the accomplishment of his purpose. His activity in colonial 
questions began to attract attention very early ; indeed, even in 
the first year of his translation there were rumors that bishops 
might soon be expected in America. 1 The plan seemed so 
certain of execution and so much to be feared in certain 
quarters, that in 1749 a deputation in England appointed a 
committee of two to wait upon those nearest in the counsels 
of the king, and to seek to convince them that such an estab- 
lishment as that contemplated " would be very disagreeable to 
many of our friends in these parts and highly Prejudicial to 
the Interests of Several of the Colonies." 2 This intervention 
was well received and gratefully acknowledged abroad, the 
Massachusetts House of Representatives returning thanks to 
the committee in a letter signed by its speaker. In 1750 this 
committee renewed its activities, and it was perhaps to some 
extent owing to its efforts that the design of Sherlock was 
frustrated. 

Simultaneously with his action in England, Sherlock had 
incited a similar movement in the colonies. Shortly before he 
presented his " Considerations " to the king, he sent an agent, 
one A. Spencer, to America to feel the pulse of the colonists on 

application consisted in submitting to the council an elaborate memorial, 
entitled " Considerations relating to the Ecclesiastical Government in Amer- 
ica," which he had drawn up February 21, 1750. It was first printed in the 
appendix to Chandler's Free Examination of Seeker's Letter to Waipole, from 
a transcription by Dr. William Smith, provost of the College of Philadelphia, 
made from the original shown to him by " a great and excellent Prelate " (see 
editorial note to appendix of the Free Examination, 103). It is reprinted 
in New York Documents, vii. 360-369, from Plantations General Entries 
(Board of Trade), xvi. 9. Cf. Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Col- 
lections, i. 145, with note, citing a letter from Sherlock to Johnson of Septem- 
ber 19, 1750. 

1 See an abstract of a letter from the Reverend Clement Hall of North 
Carolina to the secretary of the Society, 1748, in Perry, American Episcopal 
Church, i. 406; also another letter, September 11, 1749, North Carolina 
Records, iv. 924. 

2 FulhamMSS. 



Il6 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

the subject of the proposed establishment. According to his 
instructions, Spencer talked with several merchants and other 
prominent men in New York and Philadelphia. He found that 
their chief objection against such an establishment was the 
fear that it might infringe on the privileges of the people and 
the rights of the proprietaries. In answer to this objection, 
the agent pointed out that the proposed suffragan, without 
having any more power over the laity than that hitherto en- 
joyed by the commissaries, would have certain necessary advan- 
tages, such as the ability to choose suitable candidates for the 
ministry and to exercise an oversight over them. After this 
explanation, most of those interviewed declared, according to 
Spencer, that, if the case were as represented, they would 
rather concur in the plan than oppose it. 1 In reading Spencer's 
report, however, we must make some allowance for the enthu- 
siasm of an agent seeking further employment, and must remem- 
ber that the difficulty was in convincing the objectors that the 
plan was as represented. 

In England Sherlock continued his exertions for the advance- 
ment of his cause. On February 21, 1749-50, he drew up his 
" Considerations relating to Ecclesiastical Government in his 
Majesty's Dominions in America"; 2 but some months previ- 
ously he had entered into correspondence with the chief officers 
of state on this subject. 3 Perhaps a short examination of some 
of the letters which passed back and forth will give the best 

1 Spencer to Sherlock, June 12, 1749, Ftdka?n MSS. 

2 In his " Considerations " Sherlock emphasizes the need for an American 
Episcopate, and also seeks to refute the objections which might be urged 
against the plan. Chandler {Free Exainination, 3, note 3) says that the 
" Considerations " were read in the council on February 21 ; but this is an 
error. They were drawn about that date, but were not submitted to the king 
until April 1 1 (see a transcription on the back of a manuscript at Fulham) . 
Chandler's error is probably due to the fact that the document, though indorsed 
February 21, was before its final presentation submitted by Sherlock to 
some of the members of the government for their opinions upon it. In a 
letter to Newcastle, March 23, he says that he " intends " to submit it to the 
council. 

3 This correspondence, which I have extracted from the original letters 
among the Newcastle Papers in the British Museum, will be found below in 
Appendix A, No. xi. 



SHERLOCK'S CORRESPONDENCE WITH NEWCASTLE. 117 

insight into the opinions of the two parties concerned. On 
September 3, 1749, Sherlock, evidently angry, or at least dis- 
appointed, at the indifference with which his proposals had been 
received, wrote to the Duke of Newcastle expressing his un- 
willingness to take upon himself the burden which the episcopal 
oversight of the plantations would involve, and asked leave to 
confine himself to his " proper diocese of London." 1 The 
latter statement, and the implied threat which it conveyed, had 
the effect of nettling Newcastle, who answered rather sharply 
that " the appointing Bishops, in the West Indies, was a grave 
and national consideration ; had long been under the Delibera- 
tion of great and wise men ; and was, by them, laid aside ; 2 
and ought not to be resumed, for personal considerations ; or 
at all to be looked upon in that Light." 3 Sherlock, in his 
reply, while admitting that his colonial charge was burden- 
some to him, nevertheless repudiated the thought that so im- 
portant an affair could be settled on purely personal grounds. 
He insisted that the burden and expense of the jurisdiction 
beyond the seas belonged no more to the bishopric of London 
than to any of the other dioceses, and sought to prove that the 
shifting of the authority would not only benefit the see of 
London, but would be of inestimable service to the cause of 
the Episcopalians in America. 4 

1 Newcastle Papers, Home Series, 32719, f. 97. 

2 Thus, according to Newcastle, the previous plans had received the serious 
consideration of the officers of state in the days of Sherlock's predecessor. 
Compare, however, the following passage : " The late Bishop Gibson was fond 
of the project of sending bishops to our plantations. The ministry of those 
days suffered him to play with his project till he had modelled it to his own 
liking ; they then exposed the pernicious nature of it and left both the project 
and the projector to the contempt and derision of all wise and good men " 
{London Chronicle, January 17, 1764). This is an example of contemporaneous 
newspaper exaggeration. 

3 Newcastle to Sherlock, September 5, 1749, Newcastle Papers, Home 
Series, 32719, f. 105. 

4 "I reckoned (perhaps misreckoned)," he says, "that I was proposing a 
scheme for the publick service, to enable not only myself but every Bp. of 
London to execute with some tolerable degree of care the extensive commis- 
sion he is to have in his Majesties foreign dominions, in the due of w ch , the 
King's Honour is concerned ; and on w ch the Religion of the Country, the 



Il8 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

Sherlock's next step, as has been said, was to draw up his 
" Considerations " ; these he sent to the Duke of Newcastle on 
March 23, 1749-50, together with a letter giving some account 
of his plans. He informs his correspondent that he intends to 
lay his representation before the king in council ; that he has 
already submitted it to the lord chancellor, who, while finding 
" many difficulties as to the main point," admitted that there was 
nothing in the address to give offence. Sherlock hopes that, 
even should the king not agree with his plans, his representa- 
tion may at least receive some consideration ; he is willing to 
put himself altogether out of the case, although he wishes for 
many reasons that he may succeed in his undertaking. 1 Two 
days later, on March 25, Newcastle replied to this communi- 
cation. Though he expresses his agreement with the lord 
chancellor that the representation contains nothing which can 
offend, yet he is reluctant to lend his encouragement to the 
scheme. He strongly advises the renewal of the Gibson patent, 
suggesting that if it is defective in any way it may be extended. 
While professing the greatest unfitness to pass judgment on 
the merits of the question, he nevertheless places himself ten- 
tatively on the side of those who have hitherto regarded an 
establishment of American bishops as impracticable. Finally, he 
expresses a hope that, before presenting the scheme to the king 
in council, his Lordship will at least discuss it with his Majesty's 
principal servants. 2 But Sherlock was determined to press matters 
in the teeth of all advice, and submitted his representation at a 
meeting of the council on April 1 1 . Owing, however, to the king's 
departure for Hanover, consideration of it was postponed. 

But the subject was not dropped. On May 29, Horatio 
Walpole, brother of Sir Robert, and a member of the Privy 
Council, wrote to Sherlock for the facts of the case, 3 and 

prosperity of the Ch. of England ; always esteemed the Bulwark ag st Popery ; 
the members whereof are the only Set of Xtians in the King's dominions who 
own the Supremacy of the Crown, doe greatly depend " (Sherlock to New- 
castle, September 7, 1749, Newcastle Papers, Home Series, f. 113). 

1 Ibid. 32720, f. 156. 

*Ibid. f. 160. 

3 He was probably not present at the council meeting at which the memo- 
rial was read. 



HORATIO WALPOLE'S LETTER TO SHERLOCK. 119 

suggesting such objections to the project as occurred to him. 1 
Sherlock probably made no other reply than to send him a copy 
of his " Considerations." 2 Bishop Seeker, however, on Janu- 
ary 9, 1750-51, wrote an elaborate reply, which was published 
after his death in 1769. This will be considered later. Now 
it may be well to give a short survey of the principal points 
of Walpole's letter. Refusing to admit that the colonies in 
general are desirous to have native bishops established in their 
midst, he goes on to show, in support of his position, that not 
only have they never hinted to the English officers of state any 
desire for such an establishment, but they have vested those 
powers requiring the oversight of a resident bishop in other 
hands, and have, in many cases, passed acts of assembly against 
ecclesiastical laws and jurisdictions for enforcing or establish- 
ing fines and other forms of punishment. He admits that they 
have never complained of the government by commissaries, but 
thinks that this fact argues rather that they are content with 
that system than that they desire a further extension of the 
exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction at. the hands of a bishop, 
particularly since they have never objected to the commis- 
saries' lack of power. He recalls the fact that the question of 
bishops was in agitation in 1725, shortly after Gibson came to 
the see, and points out that Lord Townshend was such a good 
friend to that " Orthodox Prelate " that he would have combined 
with him to bring the plan into execution, had it been thought 
advisable and not dangerous to the interests of the state. 

What Walpole anticipated from an agitation of the scheme 
under the condition of things then existing may be best ex- 
pressed in his own words : " I cou'd not forbear," he says, 
" letting your Lordship know that I apprehended as soon as a 

1 The letter was also sent to Seeker, Bishop of Oxford, January 2, 1750-51 
{London Chronicle, June 27, 1769, which wrongly puts the date of the 
letter May 9, 1750). The contents of Walpole's communication seem never 
to have been accurately known by any except those immediately concerned. 
Chandler says simply that it was friendly in tone, and cites the testimony " of 
a Person of the strictest Veracity, who saw his Letter soon after it was written, 
and remembers the Nature and Scope of it " {Free Examination, 3-4, with 
notes) . 

2 Chandler, Free Examination, 4. 



120 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

Scheme for sending Bishops to y e Colonys altho' with certain 
restrictions shou'd under your Lordship's Authority & Influ- 
ence be made publick it wou'd immediately become y e Topick 
of all Conversation ; a matter of Controversy in y e Pulpitts, as 
well as by Pamphletts, & Libells, with a Spirit of bitterness & 
acrimony that prevail more frequently in disputes about Religion 
as y e Authors and Readers are differently affected than on any 
other Subject. . . . The Dissenters of all Sorts whom I men- 
tion with no other regard or concern than as they are generally 
well-affected, & indeed necessary supporters to y e present 
establishment in State, & therefore shou'd not be provok'd or 
alienated against it, will by the instigation and Complaints of 
their bretthren in y e Colonys altho' with no solid reason be 
loud in their discourses and writings upon this intended inno- 
vation in America, and those in y e Colonies will be exasperated 
& animated to make warm representations against it to y e 
Government here, as a design to establish Ecclesiastical power 
in its full extent among them by Degrees ; altho' y e first step 
seems to be moderate & measured, by conferring y e Authority 
of y e Bishops to be planted amongst them to certain Colonys 
and Functions." Nay, more, Walpole is inclined to believe 
that the opposition would not be confined to the dissenters, 
but that the high-church party, for the time quiet, would seize 
such a plan as a handle for criticising the king and his min- 
isters, and that the members of the low-church party, in gen- 
eral friends of the government, would be hostile to those who 
furthered such a project for stirring up strife among the col- 
onists, who were at that moment so quiet and satisfied with 
both their civil and their ecclesiastical condition. In short, he 
believes that, if the matter were brought before Parliament, the 
step would offer a very good occasion for bringing out party 
differences which had been latent since 1745. 

Walpole then comes to consider a proposal which Sherlock 
had made to the Society for Propagating the Gospel, namely, 
that the various governors be asked to give their opinions on 
the subject of the introduction of bishops into their respective 
provinces. This step of the bishop he unhesitatingly condemns. 
In the first place, he thinks that in the letter which Sherlock 



WALPOLE" S LETTER. 121 

and the Society purpose to send to the colonial governors they 
have given guarantees which they cannot carry out. " Can you 
undertake to promise," he asks, "that no coercive, or other 
Ecclesiastical power besides Ordination & Confirmation, shall 
ever be proposed & pressed upon ye Colonys when Bishops 
have been once settled amongst them, or beyond what is at 
present exercised by the Bishop of Londons Commissary. . . . 
Can y e Society undertake that y e maintenance of y e Bishops 
. . . shall be no Burthen to y e Colonys." In the face of these 
difficulties, he thinks there is every reason to believe that both 
governors and people would reject the scheme. But if nothing 
of this sort be apprehended, Sherlock's project seems to him 
still impracticable and blameworthy; for to what end or purpose 
should he consult the governors and people of America upon 
a matter which is still under the consideration of the council ? 
Should the former be induced to return a favorable answer, 
and should the latter decide that for reasons of state the step 
is inadvisable, great confusion and strife would arise. For this 
reason, Walpole strongly advises the bishop to wait until the 
council has given its opinion in the matter, and urges him not 
to be impatient if it should delay, but to regard the fact as an 
indication that it is unwilling to move hastily in so important 
an undertaking. 1 Sherlock was induced, probably by this letter, 
to postpone his proposed queries to the several governors until 
some future date. 

It is interesting to note the prophetic significance of Wal- 
pole's letter, for precisely what he foretold about the resistance 
which would arise from the colonies as soon as the plan became 
known came to pass. In support of the view that the refusal 
of the government to aid the bishop in the furtherance of 
his plans was influenced by such considerations as Walpole 
suggested, and did not, as some have maintained, arise purely 
from indifference, the correspondence which followed between 
Walpole and Newcastle may be cited. 2 

1 For the whole letter, see Appendix A, No. xi., from Newcastle Papers, 
Home Series, 32721, f. 60. 

2 An opinion expressed in 1764 by Archbishop Drummond is as follows: 
" In the late reign, the fears of disturbing his majesty's governors, particularly 



122 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

Soon after Walpole had written to Sherlock, he sent a copy 
of the letter to the Duke of Newcastle, with an explanation of 
how he came to write it. With Newcastle he could have had no 
occasion for guarding or for concealing his real meaning ; and 
what he says in his communication to him bears out in every 
particular what he had previously said in his letter to Sherlock. 1 
Newcastle's reply to Walpole of July 5 is in the same tenor. 
" I think," he writes, " there is great weight, also in the con- 
sequences, You so judiciously suggest, that This Affair may 
have at Home, in reviving old Disputes, & Distinctions, which 
are at present, quiet ; and, perhaps, creating new Divisions 
amongst Those, Who sincerely mean the good of His Majesty's 
Government and the Good of their Country. For These 
Reasons, I am persuaded, The Lords of Council, will fully 
Consider all These Points, before any material Step is taken 
in this Affair." 2 Walpole, in his acknowledgment of the 
receipt of Newcastle's letter, again alludes to the scheme, styl- 
ing it " a matter of . . . much importance to Ye Peace and Quiet 
of his Majesty's Government." 3 The hostile attitude of such 
men as Newcastle and Walpole proved too powerful to be over- 
come, and Sherlock's plan received no further consideration in 
the council. 

About this time the efforts of Sherlock began to be reenforced 
by those of some of his brethren on the episcopal bench. Chief 
among his new allies were Thomas Seeker, Bishop of Oxford, 
and William Butler, Bishop of Durham, author of the celebrated 
Analogy. The latter, in 1750, drew up a plan detailing the 

in New England, so influenced the ministry, that they not only, perhaps very 
wisely, hesitated about the proposal of settling bishops in America, but finally 
postponed it" (Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 142). 
This statement is true as far as it goes. 

1 Newcastle Papers, Home Series, 32721, f. 158. Compare the following 
statement : " Your Grace will be so good as to manage this Confidence, of 
an accidental, & private Correspondence between y e Bishops, & me with your 
usual discretion, because if my apprehensions are at all well founded, the pro- 
posal of so great a man to settle Episcopacy in the Colonys should be as little 
known as possible to y e Publick." 

2 Newcastle Papers, Home Series, 32721, f. 167. 

3 July 10, 1750, Ibid. f. 369. 



BISHOP BUTLER'S PLAN OF 1730. 123 

limitations under which the proposed bishops would be sent. He 
explains : 

"1. That no coercive power is desired over the laity in any 
case, but only a power to regulate the clergy who are in Episco- 
pal orders, and to correct and punish them according to the law 
of the Church of England, in case of misbehaviour or neglect of 
duty, with such powers as the commissaries abroad have exer- 
cised. 

" 2. That nothing is desired for such bishops that may in the 
least interfere with the dignity, or authority, or interest of the 
governor, or any other officer of state. Probate of wills, 
licenses for marriages, &c, to be left in the hands where they 
are ; and no share in the temporal government is desired for 
bishops. 

" 3. The maintenance of such bishops not to be at the charge 
of the colonies. 

"4. No bishops are intended to be settled in places where 
the government is in the hands of dissenters, as in New Eng- 
land, &c. ; but authority to be given only to ordain clergy for 
such Church of England congregations as are among them, and 
to inspect into the manners and behaviour of the said clergy, 
and to confirm the members thereof." x 

This series of proposals, though not unlike many others of 
the period, is noteworthy as coming from so eminent a man ; 
for it justifies the assumption that, whatever would have been 
the results of the introduction of bishops, many of the advocates 
of the measure were actuated by purely spiritual motives. On 

1 A copy of Butler's plan of 1750, in his own handwriting, was formerly in 
the possession of William Vassal, of Boston. It was first published by the 
Reverend East Apthorp of Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was reprinted by a 
writer signing himself " The Anatomist " (Dr. William Smith, provost of the 
College of Philadelphia), in the Pennsylvania Gazette, December 8, 1768, from 
Butler's copy as revised and approved by Sherlock and published in the Eng- 
lish edition of Johnson's Ethics, London, 1753 (see Pennsylvania Gazette, 
December 8, 1768, note). It may also be found in An Address fro?n the 
Clergy of New York and New Jersey to the Episcopalians in Virginia, 21-22 ; 
Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 408 ; Protestant Episcopal Historical 
Society, Collections, i. 142-144 (especially 143, explanatory note 2). It is 
here reprinted from the source last named. 



124 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

the other hand, such a careful list of refutations shows that the 
apprehensions of the colonists had become sufficiently impor- 
tant to be worthy of consideration. 1 

The endeavor to allay any apprehension which might arise 
from the extension of the Church of England showed itself in a 
marked degree on all sides at this time. For example, the 
Society, in a series of instructions issued to its missionaries in 
1753, enjoins them "that they take special care to give no 
offense to the Civil Government by intermeddling with affairs 



1 The proposals were introduced by the following preamble : " As the Chief 
obstruction to the settling Bishops in America arises from an apprehension 
here that the several Colonies abroad would be unwilling to have Bishops 
among them, from a jealousy that introducing ecclesiastical power among 
them may interfere with some rights which, by custom, or by acts of their 
respective assemblies, are now vested in other hands ; it is become necessary, 
in order to know their sentiments, to inform them rightly in the case. Their 
objections (if they have any) must be, as is supposed, upon one or all of 
the following accounts. 

" 1 . With respect to the coercive power such Bishops may exercise over 
the people in causes Ecclesiastical. 

" 2. With respect to the interest or authority of the Governors there. 

"3. With respect to the burthen that may be brought upon the people, 
of supporting and maintaining Bishops there. 

"4. With respect to such of the colonies where the government is in the 
hands of the Independents, or other dissenters, whose principles are inconsist- 
ent with episcopal government."" 

Conceiving that these objections were all founded on a misapprehension of 
the case, Butler advanced the considerations cited in the text. It was pro- 
posed to the Society " to recommend to such of their members as had corre- 
spondents abroad, to acquaint their friends with these particulars, in order to 
know the sense of the people there, when duly informed of the case ; and to 
know what other objections they may have to the said proposals. 11 The 
following testimony was made, November 28, 1750, by six Church of England 
clergymen resident in New England, — Timothy Cutler, Ebenezer Miller, Henry 
Caner, Charles Brockwell, William Hooper : " We, the subscribers, having 
read the foregoing objections, are not able to recollect any others made by 
the dissenters here against resident Bishops in America, but what are herein 
contained; and notwithstanding these objections, we are heartily desirous 
that bishops should be provided for the plantations, and are fully persuaded 
that our several congregations, and all other congregations of the Church of 
England in New England, are earnestly desirous of the same 11 (Chandler, 
Life of Johnson, Appendix, 1 69-1 71). 



SHERLOCK AS COLONIAL DIOCESAN. 125 

not relating to their calling or function. 1 Dr. Johnson, in a let- 
ter 2 appended to the English edition of his Elements of Phi- 
losophy, which appeared in this year, is equally deprecatory, 
although expressions in other parts of the same letter tend to 
counterbalance his assurances. 3 

Meanwhile, Sherlock continued his complaints to his corre- 
spondents, both within and without the Church of England. 4 
Nor did he confine himself to expostulation ; he even sought to 
resort to coercion, for he went so far as to refuse to receive a 
commission for the exercise of the colonial jurisdiction. Since 
this action naturally threw the colonies into great confusion, 5 he 
finally relented, however, so far as to consent to act as diocesan 
provisionally until some other arrangement could be made. 
Although he would never consent to take out a commission, he 
was by 1752 obliged, much against his will, to reconcile himself 
to the idea of assuming the ecclesiastical charge of the colonies. 6 

1 See the Society's Abstract, 1753, p. 35. But compare the following lines 
from the Abstract for 1756 (p. 43), in which the missionaries are instructed 
" to endeavor, with the utmost care and zeal in this juncture, to support his 
Majesty's Government, and to support the Welfare and Safety of his Majesty's 
American subjects, and for this good purpose, that they would upon all proper 
occasions, make the people sensible of the great blessing they enjoy, in the 
free exercise of their religion, and the advantages of lawful government under 
the benign reign of a Protestant prince." 

2 A Letter containing some I?npartial Thoughts concerning the Settlefnent 
of Bishops in America. By the Author and some of his Brethren.''' 1 

3 For example, he says {Elements, 262-271), that " in proportion as episcopal 
congregations have been settled among those called Independents. . . . their 
principles of government have become more unmonarchical and constitutional." 

4 For example, to Dr. Johnson, in 1749, to whom he gave an account of his 
efforts to obtain an episcopal establishment. Cf. Wilberforce, Protestant 
Episcopal Church, 139, note 1, and Hawkins, Missions of the Church of Eng- 
land, 390 ; both citing Chandler, Life of Johnson, 131-132. 

6 On October 6, 1749, Commissary Price of New England wrote to Bear- 
croft, secretary of the Society : " We are very unsettled here in our Ecclesias- 
tical State, it is the current Report that the Bishop of London has refused to 
concern himself with the American Churches, and I suppose my Commissarial 
power is now extinct, I should be glad to have your thoughts upon it and to 
know what we are to expect " (Perry, Historical Collections, iii. (Massachusetts) 
434; Foote, Annals of King's Chapel, i. 387). 

6 Bearcroft announced the Bishop's final determination in a letter to Dr. 
Miller, May 1, 1752 : "There are now," he said, "no farther hopes of obtain- 



126 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

" I think myself, at present, in a very bad situation," he writes 
at this time. " Bishop of a vast country, without power or influ- 
ence, or any means of promoting true religion, sequestered from 
the people over whom I have the care and must never hope to see, 
I should be tempted to throw off all this care quite, were it not 
for the sake of preserving even the appearance of an episcopal 
church in the plantation." 1 Truly an enviable state of things 
for the Church of England in America, always unpopular, but 
now, in consequence of the impending crisis, almost hated, with 
no authoritative guide save a man beyond the seas who per- 
formed his duty only in the most perfunctory way, because 
there was no escape for him, and who would not even take the 
necessary steps to legalize the small amount of jurisdiction 
which he consented to exercise ! 

As the middle of the century drew near, the authorities in 
Virginia began a systematic course of repressive measures 
against the dissenters, particularly the Methodists, who for some 
years had been organizing in the province. 2 One of the conse- 
quences of this persecution was the rise of an interesting corre- 
spondence between the Bishop of London and Dr. Joseph 
Doddridge, which gave the former another chance to express 

ing a Bishop for you, and my Lord of London talks of taking out his patent 
for the ordinary Jurisdiction of the Plantations." (Perry, Historical Collec- 
tions, iii. (Massachusetts) 444.) But if Sherlock ever seriously entertained 
this intention, he never carried it out. 

1 Abbey, English Church and Bishops, i. 363, citing John Stoughton, 
Religion in England, i. 325 ; Anderson, Colonial Church, iii. 433 ; Chandler, 
Life of Johnson, Appendix, 1 71-172. 

2 Dissent became prominent in Virginia with the " revival " of Whitefield, 
who visited the colony for the first time in 1740. Bibliography of the treat- 
ment of dissent in Virginia : Anderson, Colonial Church, iii. ch. xxiv. ; Briggs, 
Presbyterianism in America, 86-90; Burk, History of Virginia, ii. 138, iii. 
119, 125, iv. 377 ; Campbell, Introduction to the History of Virginia, 114-117 ; 
Foote, Sketches of Virginia, chs. i.-iii., vi., ix., xiv. ; Hartwell, Blair, and Chil- 
ton, Present State of Virginia, 64-67 ; Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, i. 
(Virginia) ch. vi. if. ; Hening, Statutes, v.-ix. ; Howison, History of Virginia, 
ii. 31, 155, 160, 192; Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 307-319; Jones, Present 
State of Virginia, 65-74, 95-112 ; Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Fa?ni- 
lies of Virginia, i. 18, 94, 150-151, 162-163, 231, 250, 275, 283-284, 301, 387, 
407, 470, ii. 179; Perry, A?7ierican Episcopal Church, i. 604-614, and His- 
torical Collections, i. (Virginia) ; Semple, History of the Baptists, chs. i.-iii. 



SHERLOCK'S LETTER TO DR. DODDRIDGE. 127 

his views on the general subject of episcopal control in the col- 
onies. His first letter to Dr. Doddridge, dated May 11, 175 1, 
was in answer to one from Doddridge on the subject of the 
famous Virginia Methodist preacher, the Rev. Samuel Davies. 
After disposing of the specific question in hand, Sherlock passes 
to his favorite theme of the folly of subjecting the Church 
of England in America to a non-resident diocesan. 1 The letter 
is interesting to us for two reasons : first, because it shows the 
determined insistence of Sherlock on what had grown to be 
the constant burden of his song — the total non-interference of 
the clergy, commissary, or bishop, except in matters of church 
administration, and the absence of any intention to press upon 
the colonists an episcopate which would in any way encroach 
on their vested rights in civil and ecclesiastical affairs ; and, 
secondly, because it admits that the dissenters, unwilling to 
accept these constantly reiterated assurances, were prepared to 
resist to the utmost any attempts to introduce bishops into 
America. 

Perhaps the very fact of Sherlock's attempt to show, as a first 
step in the accomplishment of his plans, that the Bishop of Lon- 
don had little basis either in law or in fact for the exercise of 
his authority, drew renewed attention to the subject in the colo- 
nies. At any rate, from the correspondence of this period we 
learn much concerning the light in which the bishop's jurisdic- 
tion was regarded both at home and abroad. There were ap- 

1 " Sundry of the people have been indicted and fin'd," he says, " and it is 
upon this information (I suppose) that you express yourself apprehensive that 
methods of severity, not to say of oppression, may be used. Of this I have 
heard nothing. But give me leave to right you in one thing, and to tell you 
that my name neither is nor can be used to any such purpose. The Bishop 
of London and his Commissarys have no such power in the plantations ; and 
I believe they never desired to have it, so if there be any ground for such com- 
plaint, the Civil Government only is concerned. . . . The care of it . . . 
[the church of England there] is supposed to be in the Bishop of London. 
How he comes to be charged with this care I will not enquire now ; but sure I 
am, that the care is improperly lodged, for a Bishop to live at one end of the 
world, and his church at the other, must make the office very uncomfortable to 
the Bishop, and in a great measure useless to the people " (Perry, Historical 
Collections, i. (Virginia) 371-374 ; Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 
391-392 ; citing Doddridge, Correspondence a?id Diary, v. 201). 



128 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

parently two views on the subject. These are well outlined in a 
report on the state of the church in Connecticut which the Rev- 
erend James Wetmore sent to Sherlock, August n, 1752. The 
advocates of one view maintained that the colonies were part 
and possession of the English nation, and were therefore sub- 
ject to that government in all things religious and civil; since, 
then, the mother country was of the Church of England, they 
were also theoretically subjects of that church. The authority 
for the establishment they drew from the declarations in the Act 
of Union, and from Gibson's patent empowering him to exercise 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the plantations. 

Those who took the opposite view based their opinion on a 
passage in a letter from the lords chief justices to Governor 
Dummer of Massachusetts, in 1725, which declared that there 
was " no regular establishment of any national or provincial 
Church in these plantations " (meaning New England), and also 
in a passage in a letter of May 24, 1735, from Bishop Gibson to 
Dr. Colman, in which he says : " My opinion has always been, 
that the religious state of New England is founded on an equal 
liberty to all Protestants, none of which can claim the name of 
a national establishment, or any kind of superiority over the 
rest." Wetmore, who held the former of the opposing views, 
and who sent to the Bishop of London for his opinion on the 
subject, evidently had a high estimate of that prelate's colonial 
influence ; for he remarks, " A short paragraph from your Lord- 
ship would be of equal authority with those alleged against us, 
and carry the same reverence and respect ; and, for my own 
part, I shall most humbly submit to correction from your Lord- 
ship's hands if I have gone into mistakes." x Whether the 
bishop ever sent the " short paragraph " does not appear. Even 
if he had done so, it is, to say the least, extremely uncertain 
whether his words would have had the weight which his cor- 
respondent expected. It must, however, be remembered that the 
discussion took place in New England, where the authority of 
the Church of England and of the Bishop of London had a 
minimum of recognition. 

After Sherlock's determination temporarily to assume his 
1 Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Documents, i. 292-295. 



REPORTS ON THE STATE OF THE COLONIAL CHURCH. 129 

colonial jurisdiction was made public, apparently many of the 
clergymen beyond the seas began to regain courage. A sign 
of renewed interest is the fact that many accounts of the state 
of the church were sent at this time to the authorities in Eng- 
land. 1 Take as an example a letter of September 29, 1752, 
from the Reverend Alexander Adams of Maryland to Bishop 
Sherlock. It appears that Adams had sent to the bishop on 
the 5th of October in the previous year an appeal urging the 
necessity of bishops in America. He had written this earlier 
letter upon the news of Sherlock's refusal to undertake the care 
of the plantations. Now, hearing that his Lordship has recon- 
sidered the matter, he writes again to lay before his diocesan 
the state of the churches in Maryland, the origin and basis of 
the establishment, and the various attempts which have been 
made to subvert it. Since the watchful care of the governor 
and the lack of a legally-appointed commissary make it impos- 
sible for the clergy to assemble and address their grievances to 
the home government, Mr. Adams has taken it upon himself to 
perform that duty. He begs his bishop to intercede with Lord 
Baltimore and his guardian, Mr. Onslow, speaker of the House 
of Commons, to prevent the assembly from encroaching any more 
upon the establishment. He regrets that for some years the 
clergy have had neither bishop nor commissary to call them 
together by authority, and expresses the hope that Sherlock 
will appoint two commissaries, one for the Eastern and one for 
the Western Shore. 2 As was said above, Sherlock was the recip- 
ient of many appeals of this sort ; but when they concerned 
matters of purely church interest he gave them little or no 
attention. Except in Virginia, where the commissarial office 
went with the presidency of the college, he appointed no new 
commissaries ; hence, after those serving at the time of his acces- 
sion had died, there remained an authoritative representative of 
the Bishop of London in only one province in America. 

a No doubt the circular letter asking for information concerning the state 
of the church, which Sherlock sent out, September 19, 1750, to those who had 
been commissaries under his predecessor, may have had considerable to do 
with increasing the volume of his colonial correspondence at this time. 
2 Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Maryland) 327-329. 

9 



130 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

On questions concerning the political status of the colonies 
and the relation of the church thereto, Sherlock was more ready- 
to express himself, and we find him constantly making decisions 
upon laws submitted to him by the Lords Commissioners for 
Trade and Plantations. The case of the Virginia Tobacco acts 
of 1753, 1755, and 1758 will serve as a good illustration. These 
acts were the basis of the celebrated " Parson's Cause," 1 which 
is treated of at length in every history of the period. They con- 
cern us here only so far as the Bishop of London was involved in 
the affair. His connection with it came about in this way. The 
Lords Commissioners, believing the subject to be one proper for 
his consideration, transmitted to him the successive acts, together 
with the memorial of the Virginia clergy directed against them. 2 
Sherlock's reply reviewing the case is enclosed in the report of 
the Lords Commissioners to the crown, recommending the dis- 
allowance of the acts. He takes the ground that an act which 
has once received the royal assent — like that of 1748, against 
which the three acts in question are directed — can be repealed 
only by the same authority, and hence that it cannot be abro- 
gated by any contrary act of assembly. For this reason he 
argues that the Virginia act of October 12, 1758, is ipso facto 
null and void. In the course of his letter he takes occasion to 
say that the rights of the clergy stand or fall with those of the 
crown, a significant utterance which may give a clue to the under- 
lying motive of his agitation for an American episcopate. The 
Tobacco Act was disallowed by the crown in 1760. 3 

The next case to be taken up is that of the North Carolina 
Church Act of January, 1755, entitled "An Act for appointing 
Parishes and Vestries for the encouragement of an Orthodox 

1 For a full account of this subject, see Perry, Historical Collections, i. 
(Virginia) 434 if. (where the correspondence and other original documents 
are printed) ; W. W. Henry, Life of Patrick Henry, i. 29 ff. ; William Wirt, 
Life of Patrick Henry, 19 ff. ; Mellen Chamberlain in Winsor, Narrative and 
Critical History, vi. 1-34; Foote, Sketches of Virginia, 310 ff. ; Campbell, 
History of Virginia, ch. lxv. ; Burk, History of Virginia, iii. ch. iv. The acts 
themselves, together with that of 1696, are printed in Hening, Statutes, iii. y 
vi., vii. 

2 See Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 458-460. 

3 Ibid. 461-463. 



THE NORTH CAROLINA CHURCH ACT OF 1755- 13 1 

Clergy, etc." This was naturally referred to the lords in coun- 
cil for consideration, who, " it appearing to their Lordships that 
the Law . . . might operate to the prejudice of and interfere 
with the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Bishop of London," 
ordered their secretary to send his Lordship a copy, in order that 
he might express his opinion upon it. 1 The bishop's reply is 
interesting to us chiefly from the fact that it contains the fullest 
and latest exposition of his views on the subject of his jurisdic- 
tion. He considers one after the other the two questions 
referred to him: (1) How far the provisions of the act may 
" affect the right of the Crown to the Patronage and Presenta- 
tion to ecclesiastical Benefices " ; (2) How far they may " affect 
and interfere with the Bishop's ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the 
Colonies." 2 

The first question he dismisses rather summarily as follows : 
The patronage and livings are rightfully in the control of the 
crown, and are delegated to the governor by virtue of his royal 
commission; the act of 1755 appropriates to the vestries the 
patronage of all livings in the province, sets up a new jurisdic- 
tion quite inconsistent with the Church of England form of 
government, excludes any bishop from the examination or cor- 
rection of any misbehavior in the church, and takes from the 
crown the right of appeal; by these provisions, therefore, the 
king's supremacy and the bishop's jurisdiction are transferred 
from their proper lodgment to the vestries of the several par- 
ishes. 

Having pronounced this rather general opinion upon the first 
of the two questions referred to him, Bishop Sherlock proceeds 
to a much fuller discussion of the question as to how far the act 
may trespass upon his own colonial jurisdiction. To this end 
he deems it necessary to show whether the Bishop of London 
really has any authority over the plantations, and if so what. 
As an answer to this question he encloses the report made by 
him upon his accession to the see, with a few appended remarks 
as to its history. We have so often had occasion to refer to 
and discuss various portions of this address, that we need here 

1 North Carolina Records, vi. 68 
2 Ibid. 10-13. 



132 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

take time only to consider the supplementary remarks, so far as 
they concern our subject. 

Among other things he seeks to explain the attitude which 
he has taken toward the Gibson commission. " It may be 
asked, perhaps," he says, "why the present Bishop of London 
could not go on with the Jurisdiction abroad, as his Predeces- 
sors had done, ever since the settling of the Colonies. My 
answer, is, that if the Jurisdiction had come to me upon the foot 
of customary usage, as it had done to my Predecessors, till 
Bishop Gibson's time, I should have made no difficulty of act- 
ing upon that foot, and I doubt not but those who come after 
me would have gone on in the same way; but when Bishop 
Gibson, for reasons best known to himself, applyed for a patent, 
and the consideration thereof was referred to the Attorney and 
Solicitor General, and they reported that the Jurisdiction was 
in the Crown, and that the Bishop of London had no right to 
meddle, it was time for me to consider the danger that attends 
the invasion of the Prerogative of the Crown, which could not 
be avoided but by accepting a Patent of like form with that which 
was granted before, which I judged not proper for me to do." * 

This whole explanation is very unsatisfactory and unconvinc- 
ing, and avoids the very point which one would wish to have 
elucidated; for just why his Lordship judged it not proper to 
renew the Gibson patent, he does not deign to inform us. 
Moreover, the statements made here do not accord with those 
made in other places, — for example, in his letters to the Duke 
of Newcastle, where the reason he ascribes for wishing to dis- 
continue the colonial jurisdiction customarily exercised by the 
Bishop of London lies in the too great care and responsibility 
which it involves. 2 In short, this letter leaves us as much in the 
dark as ever concerning Sherlock's motives. Perhaps he was, 
for personal reasons, disinclined to assume the responsibility 
which such a charge, legally conferred, would carry with it. 
Perhaps he conscientiously believed that, from the nature of the 
case, a non-resident bishop ought not to undertake the charge. 
Or, finally, perhaps he was actuated by motives purely political, 

1 North Carolina Records, vi. 13. 

2 See above, p. 117 and note 4. 



THE CORRESPONDENCE OF SECKER AND JOHNSON. 133 

or at least, ecclesiastico-political. Assuming that a colonial 
episcopate was indispensable, he sought to secure it by starving 
the English government on the one side, and the colonial 
Episcopalians on the other, into acquiescence, by neglecting to 
perform, so far as his duties as a Christian shepherd would 
permit, even the few duties appertaining to the Bishop of 
London as colonial diocesan. 

At any rate, whatever influenced him to act as he did, his pol- 
icy of non-intervention in the concerns of the Church of Eng- 
land in the American colonies was rigidly adhered to. By this 
time all the commissaries appointed by Compton, Robinson, 
and Gibson were dead, and their places had been filled nowhere 
except in Virginia. This lack of oversight was so bitterly felt 
that even the most ardent advocates of an American episcopate 
were willing to prejudice their cause by a return to the old 
system. 1 

An interesting episode of this period is the correspondence 
carried on by Dr. Johnson of Connecticut and Bishop Seeker 
on the subject of an American episcopate. The first important 
letter in the series is one from Seeker, dated March 19, 1754, 
acknowledging the receipt of Johnson's Elements of Philosophy, 
published in London in the previous year. He expresses satis- 
faction with the arguments set forth in the letter appended to 
that work, and regrets that, since all their efforts have come to 
nothing, they must wait until a more favorable time for pushing 
the cause which they have so much at heart. Meantime, he 
suggests that the Episcopalians direct their attention to placat- 
ing the dissenters, who, he says, will be heeded by the govern- 
ment so long as they have any objections to the plan. The 
ground of their aversion he attributes to their uneasiness caused 
by the rapid growth of the Church of England in the colonies. 2 
Writing again some years later, Seeker proclaims to Johnson 
the joyful news that he has found Lord Halifax "very earnest 
for Bishops in America," and expresses hopes that they are at 
last on the point of succeeding in their undertaking so soon as 

1 New York Documents, vii. 370-374. 

2 Beardsley, Life of Johnson, 177-179 ; Chandler, Life ofJoJi7ison, Appendix, 
176-177. 



134 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

the war then going on should cease. 1 But, aside from this sin- 
gle burst of enthusiasm, he was still biding his time ; and most 
of his letters throughout the period were written to keep the 
over-zealous Johnson from taking any too precipitate step. 2 The 
continuation and conclusion of this correspondence will be con- 
sidered in another connection. 

During Sherlock's incumbency occurred a striking instance 
in which the authority of the Bishop of London to exercise one 
of his most recognized functions was for the first time seriously 
questioned by members of a congregation hitherto noted for its 
general loyalty to its diocesan. The case came up at Christ 
Church, Philadelphia, in connection with the Reverend William 
McClenaghan, a clergyman, originally a Presbyterian but after- 
ward converted to Episcopacy, who came to Philadelphia in 1758. 3 
Some of the congregation of Christ Church wanted to make 
him a third assistant to Dr. Robert Jenney, in spite of the latter's 
wishes. This attempt and the discussion which it involved drew 
forth some significant declarations. On the one hand, the sec- 
ond assistant minister at Christ Church, Jacob Duche, insisted 
that no one could be made an assistant without the consent of the 
rector and the license or the approbation of the Bishop of Lon- 
don. On the other hand, the members of the congregation who 
had first addressed the vestry in behalf of McClenaghan re- 
torted as follows in a petition to Dr. Jenney and his vestry : — 
" In Mr. McClenaghan's present state and settlement among us, 
we shall ever consider him invested with all the powers neces- 
sary for the discharge of any duties pertaining to his Office as 
fully as if he had his Lordships License . . . ; his Lordship's 
License means nothing here, as we humbly apprehend, without a 

1 Beardsley, Life of Johnson, 253. 

2 On October 25, 1760, when George III. acceded to the throne, Johnson 
wrote to Seeker as to the advisability of moving his Majesty to settle bishops 
in America at the conclusion of the war, and enclosed the draft of an " address 
to the king " which he had prepared. Seeker, thinking the time not yet ripe, 
replied : " This is a matter of which you in America cannot judge ; and there- 
fore I beg you will attempt nothing without the advice of the Society or of the 
Bishops" (Ibid. 256). 

3 For a fuller account of McClenaghan, see New York Documents, vii. 41 5, 
note 1 ; Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, ii. 250. 



REVEREND WILLIAM McCLENAGHAN'S CASE. 135 

previous presentation from the people" They insisted on the 
validity of this assumption and asserted that it was acknowl- 
edged by the late Bishop of London. 1 

This attitude was rather extreme. It is true that the bishop 
was not accustomed to put a clergyman into any parish without 
a presentation from the people ; but it is doubtful if any prece- 
dent could have justified a part, or even a majority, of the con- 
gregation in calling, settling, and inducting a minister in open 
disregard of the wishes of their diocesan. Certainly up to this 
time no such right had ever been claimed in Pennsylvania. The 
usual custom here, as in other colonies where nomination was not 
in the hands of the governor or of the Society for Propagating 
the Gospel, had been for the vestry to recommend and for the 
bishop to approve. The basis for this procedure — so far at 
least as it concerned Pennsylvania — may be found in a clause 
of the charter granted by Charles II. to William Penn : " Our 
further pleasure is . . . that if any of the inhabitants of the 
said Province, to the number of Twenty, shall . . .. signify . . . 
their desire to the Bishop of London that any preacher or 
preachers, to be approved of by the said Bishop, may be sent 
unto them for their instruction, that then such preacher or 
preachers . . . may . . . reside within the said province." 2 In 
the opinion of Dr. Smith, provost of the College of Philadelphia, 
this clause made the approval of the Bishop of London for 
the time being necessary to the establishment of every Episco- 
pal congregation and to the appointment of every Episcopal 
minister ; nor was it likely that any laws made upon the author- 
ity of the charter would recognize any minister of the church 
" that had not his Lordship's license and approbation." 3 After 

1 They could point to precedents for this position in the cases of the two 
rectors who were appointed to King's Chapel, Boston, during the Gibson 
period, Roger Price in 1729, and Henry Caner in 1746 (see Foote, Annals 
of King's Chapel, 382). The case of Caner was clearly one in which the 
appointment was made by the congregation. 

2 Poore, Charters and Constitutions, ii. 15 15. See also p. 36, note 1, above, 
where the clause is cited in full. 

3 Dr. Smith to Archbishop Seeker, November 28, 1759, New York Docu- 
ments, vii. 406-417. The sources of the case are printed in Perry, Historical 
Collections, ii. (Pennsylvania), 295-311, 320-323. 



136 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

some discussion, the side of Dr. Jenney and the Bishop of Lon- 
don was sustained ; McClenaghan, failing to get his appoint- 
ment, removed to New Jersey, and this rather striking attempt 
of the congregation to appoint a minister in spite of the rector 
and the diocesan came to nothing. 1 

In Virginia there was still a commissary; but his authority 
was even more of a shadow than it had hitherto been. This is 
well illustrated by a case which came up for cognizance about 
the year 1757. One John Brunskill, minister of Hamilton parish, 
Prince William County, openly persisted in an irregular course 
of life, in spite of repeated reproof, advice, and exhortation. 
Finally, the church wardens and vestry made a complaint to the 
commissary and one of the representatives of the county. The 
latter, being in town during the session of the assembly, brought 
the matter to the attention of the governor, who advised the 
commissary to proceed against the offender in a judicial manner. 
The commissary replied that he had not sufficient authority to 
exercise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or, even in the most 
notorious cases, to proceed to either suspension or deprivation, 2 
but promised that he would consult with the clergy and report 
to the Bishop of London, in order to find some means of remov- 
ing the scandal. Meanwhile some of the council informed the 
governor that in the time of Blair irregular clergymen had been 
proceeded against by the governor and council; whereupon 
Governor Dinwiddie, in spite of the protest of Commissary 
Dawson, deemed it advisable to lay the matter before the coun- 
cil, which straightway removed the refractory clergyman and 
deprived him of his function as a preacher. This step was in 
accordance with Virginia law, which gave to the governor and 
council cognizance over all causes ecclesiastical and civil, and 
which had been recognized by the late commissary. 3 Neverthe- 

1 It is worth while to note that a convention of the Pennsylvania clergy, 
held in 1760, informed their bishop that, as the case was placed before him, 
his answer would be a "final determination. 1 ' 

2 Thomas Dawson, who was commissary at this time, had been appointed 
in 1752, four years after the expiration of the Gibson patent, and had never 
received any commission. 

3 See Commissary William Dawson to Sherlock, July 15, 175 1, Fulham MSS. 



ESTIMATE OF SHERLOCK'S POLICY AND WORK. 137 

less, many persons, among them the commissary, objected to the 
proceeding as a violation of the one hundred twenty-second 
canon of the ecclesiastical law of the Church of England. 1 
Thereupon Dawson wrote to his diocesan for advice, urgently 
soliciting a commission as an efficacious protection against such 
encroachments in the future, but adding, in justice to the gov- 
ernor and council, that they had been far from desirous of exer- 
cising any such power, and would much rather have seen it 
delegated to him as commissary. The governor also wrote to 
the bishop to explain that he would not have interfered in the 
matter had the commissary been possessed of the proper author- 
ity ; at the same time he expressed a hope that, since the com- 
missary held no commission for erecting a spiritual court, his 
Lordship would approve the deprivation of Brunskill by the 
governor and council, for otherwise there would be no means 
of executing justice in such cases. Moreover, he justified his 
act by a well-known precedent. 2 The bishop evidently sus- 
tained the governor in his proceeding ; at any rate, any future 
discipline of the clergy was undertaken, if at all, by the lay, not 
by the ecclesiastical authorities. 

In summing up the events relating to the Bishop of London's 
colonial jurisdiction during the time of Sherlock's incumbency 
of that see, we strike the key-note of his policy by repeating 
what has been so often said already : that, except for a certain 
oversight in matters of political and constitutional significance, 
it was marked by an almost total disregard of American eccle- 
siastical affairs, and by a persistent endeavor to further the 
establishment of bishops in the colonies. 3 His efforts, in con- 

1 It is also tolerably evident that they did not want such a precedent of lay 
control over the clergy to be established. 

2 Dawson wrote two letters to Sherlock, July 9, 1757 (Perry, Historical 
Collections, i. (Virginia) 451-454). Dinwiddle's letter is dated September 12, 
1757 {Ibid. 454-458) ; he had announced the decision of the governor and 
council to Brunskill's parish, May 20, 1757. 

3 In view of this fact, it is amusing to read the following extract from a 
funeral sermon on Sherlock, by Dr. Nicolls, master of the Temple : " He ex- 
tended his care to the parts abroad," said the preacher, " and began a corre- 
spondence there, which would have been very usefull to the Church, if his 
health had permitted him to carry it on " {London Chronicle, January 20, 1762). 



138 SHERLOCK'S POLICY. 

junction with those of his colleagues on the bench, notably of 
Bishop Seeker, the later Archbishop of Canterbury, came into 
conflict with the increasing tendency toward independence in 
church and state which was growing more and more evident 
in the colonies, and led to those episcopal controversies which 
it will be the purpose of the next few chapters to examine. 



CHAPTER VI. 

THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY, 1 763-1 765. 

It was not long after Cutler, Johnson, and their companions 
passed over from the Presbyterian to the Episcopal communion, 
before discussions upon the relative merits of the two systems 
©f government and worship began t© agitate New England. 1 
At first of a purely, or at least of a mainly, theological charac- 
ter, they soon assumed a more and more ecclesiastico-political 
tinge, until they finally culminated in the celebrated controver- 
sies of the decade 1760- 1770. 

The origin of these disputations seems to have been due to 
the apprehension and opposition which the New England clergy 
of the Independent persuasions manifested toward the introduc- 
tion of the Episcopal church into the province. The position 
of the majority of the New Englanders toward the Church of 
England system is well expressed in the words of one of the 
best-known contemporaries : " Let all mankind know," he says, 
" that we came into the wilderness, because we would worship 
God without that Episcopacy, that common prayer, and those 
unwarrantable ceremonies, with which the land of our fore fathers' 
sepulchres has been defiled ; we came hither because we would 
have our posterity settled under the pure and full dispensations 
of the gospel, defended by rulers that should be of our selves." 2 
Starting out in such an attitude of mind, and with the history 
of the events of the first half of the seventeenth century deeply 
graven in their memories, it was natural that they should regard 

1 For a complete bibliography of the Episcopal controversy in New England, 
and the questions relating to it, see Foote, Annals of King's Chapel, ii. ch. 
xvii, particularly p. 274. Such of the pamphlets as are of a purely theological 
nature are not incorporated in the bibliography appended to the present 
work. 

2 Cotton Mather, Magnalia (Hartford, 1820), vol. i. book iii. pt. i. § vii. 
219; Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 143. 



140 THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY. 

as a direct menace to the freedom and independence of their 
institutions, civil as well as ecclesiastical, every step which 
[ brought nearer to them that form of worship which repre- 
sented the dreaded Anglican establishment. 

As early as 1734 Dr. Colman wrote to Bishop Gibson in 
behalf of the associated ministers of Hampshire County, and 
enclosed a petition from them protesting against the practice 
of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in sending its mis- 
sionaries to New England instead of to other places where they 
were more needed. 1 But the first really significant landmark 
in the always latent hostility between the two parties was an 
animated controversy concerning the validity of Presbyterian 
ordination, which came to a head in the years 1747-175 1. 2 The 
immediate occasion for the outbreak seems to have been given 
by a sermon preached by the Reverend Noah Hobart at Stam- 
ford, Connecticut, December 13, 1746. Certain aspersions which 
the preacher made against the Episcopalians 3 brought forth early 
in the following year an answer from the Reverend James Wet- 

1 Colmanls letter, dated September 13, 1734, is printed in Turell, Life of 
Colman, 1 41-143. The letter of the Hampshire ministers, dated September 10, 
1734, is printed as the second number by the "Anatomist" in the Pennsyl- 
vania Gazette, September 15, 1768. David Humphreys answered this letter 
in behalf of the Society. The gist of his argument was (1) that the mission- 
aries were sent to places where there were many people who did not care to 
worship with the dissenters ; (2) that the places to which they were sent were 
published in the Society's annual Abstracts, and that, since large numbers 
of people continued their subscriptions, it was evident that the procedure of 
the Society was not regarded as a violation of the charter. The complaints 
begun by the Hampshire association of ministers in 1734 were taken up by 
the Independent Reflector and the Watch Tower, published in New York in 
1752 and 1753 respectively. 

2 There is a good account of these controversies in Foote, Annals of King 'j 
Chapel, ii. 247 ff. The account given in the text is based on an actual exami- 
nation of the original writings. References to the earlier Checkley controversy 
may be found above, pp. 66, 67. Though it is sometimes said that the Epis- 
copal controversy originated in the discussion which Checkley stirred up, the 
evidence seems hardly to warrant the statement. 

3 Chiefly his assertion that it was unnecessary, and therefore a misappropri- 
ation of the charitable funds, for the Society to send missionaries into New 
England, where the Gospel was already sufficiently taught. This was pre- 
cisely the contention of the Hampshire association of ministers. 



HOB ART'S "SERIOUS ADDRESS." 141 

more, rector of the parish of Rye, and missionary of the Society,, 
in an open letter to a friend. 1 Thereupon Hobart replied with 
A Serious Address to the Members of the Episcopal Separation 
in New England, occasioned by Mr. Wetmore's Vindication of 
the Church of Englajid in Connecticut. 2 The aim of this work 
was to "fix and settle" three points: (1) "Whether the Inhab- 
itants of the British Plantations in America, those of New-Eng- 
land in particular, are obliged, in Point of Duty, by the Laws of 
God or Man, to conform to the Prelatic Church, by Law estab- 
lished in the South Part of Great-Britain;" (2) "Whether 
it be proper in Point of Prudence for those who are already 
settled in such Churches as have so long subsisted in New- 
England, to forsake them and go over to that Communion /" 
(3) "Whether it be lawful for particular Members of New- 
English Churches to separate from them, and join in Commun- 
ion with the Episcopal Assemblies in the Country." 

These propositions give one a tolerably clear idea of the aim 
and scope of Hobart's pamphlet. Although it would be hardly 
worth while to consider in detail its one hundred and thirty odd 
pages of theological polemics, perhaps a brief summary of some 
of its main arguments will not be out of place. Under the first 
head the author discusses the question whether the Church of 
England establishment extends to America, and decides it in the 
negative. 3 Passing to the second point, he comes to the con- 
clusion that the great number of " unnecessary ecclesiastical 
Officers" required by the Church of England system, and the 
great expense involved in supporting them, make it imprudent 
for those of his persuasion to submit to that system. The argu- 
ment which he here employs is exceedingly utilitarian, and 
sounds strangely modern. For example, in one place he says : 
"A wise Man would chuse such a Constitution in Church or 
State, wherein the great Ends of Society are effectually an- 

1 It was published at Boston in 1747, under the title A Vindication of the 
Professors of the Church of England in Connecticntt, against the Invectives 
contained in a Sermon preached at Stamford by Mr. Noah Hobart, December 
13, 1746. 

2 Boston, 1748. 

3 Serious Address, 5-44. 



142 THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY. 

swered, with as little Burden and Charge as may be to the Com- 
munity. 1 Another reason which he urges against the prudence 
of conforming to the Church of England, is that such a step 
would tend to bring the colonies into an " unnecessary and 
hurtful State of Dependence." By dependence, however, he 
means ecclesiastical dependence ; for he says very decidedly 
that the colonies are, and of right ought to be, dependent upon 
the mother country in all civil affairs. 2 Besides, he argues, 
such a political relation is advantageous ; but a state of eccle- 
siastical dependence, carrying with it no attendant advantages 
in the way of trade or civil privileges, would certainly not 
be beneficial to the colonies, and might be just the reverse. 
Evidently, the idea that civil independence is a necessary ac- 
companiment of religious liberty, had not yet been developed. 
Without following Hobart's argument upon this head any far- 
ther, we may point out that he regards conformity to the Church 
of England to be imprudent for many reasons : first, on the 
ground of expense; secondly, because of the tyrannical disci- 
pline exercised by that church ; thirdly, because of its arbitrary 
power in appointing and removing ministers ; and, finally, be- 
cause such conformity would lead to the destruction of prac- 
tical religion. 3 

In the latter part of his book, Hobart touches on the subject 
of bishops. Apropos of the fact that the Church of England in 
America is suffering from an alarming lack of discipline, he 
considers the suggestion made by the Bishop of Oxford in his 
sermon before the Society 4 (a suggestion which had been taken 
up and repeated over and over by the pro-episcopal party on 
both sides of the water), namely, that this defect could be reme- 
died by establishing bishops. His answer to this proposition is 
very sane, and quite to the point. " For my Part," he says, " I 
can't see that the Bishop himself has, according to the Practice of 

1 Serious Address, 49. 

2 " Whatever the Enemies of the Plantations may report at Home, of the 
Danger of their casting off their Dependence, I believe it may with Truth be 
affirmed," says he, " that there is not a Man of Sense in them all, but what is 
willing, nay, would chuse to continue in this State 11 {Ibid. 64-65). 

*Ibid. 78. 

4 Printed in the Society's Abstract, 1741, p. 32. Cf. above, p. 109. 



THE "CALM AND DISPASSIONATE VINDICATION." 143 

the Church of England, anything to do with the Discipline of the 
Church ; this is managed in the spiritual Court, by a Lay-Chan- 
cellor, appointed, indeed, by the Bishop, and acting in his Name, 
but not under his Direction, nor liable to be controled by him." 1 
This is very true ; it is, indeed, hard to see how a bishop of 
the character advocated by Seeker and those of his way of 
thinking could have exercised a discipline any more efficacious 
than that already exercised by the commissaries. 

Such is a brief outline of Hobart's argument. From his 
standpoint the whole course of his reasoning is logical, and, 
for the time in which he lived, admirably calm and considerate 
of the feelings of his opponents. 

The next step in the progress of the controversy was marked 
by the appearance, in the following year, of A Calm and Dis- 
passionate Vindication of tJie Professors of the Church of Eng- 
land, purporting, as the title-page further informs the reader, 
to be directed " against the Abusive Misrepresentations and 
falacious Argumentations of Mr. Noah Hobart." The body of 
the work was written by John Beach, but was provided with a 
preface from the pen of Dr. Johnson, and with an appendix 
containing " Vindications " by Wetmore and Henry Caner. In 
reply to the charge that the Church of England has no disci- 
pline, Beach admits that its system is imperfect for want of a 
bishop, a lack which he hopes will soon be filled. Then, 
passing over, without any adequate refutation, the argument 
of Hobart cited above, he contends that the discipline of the 
Episcopal Church in America is, in spite of its imperfections, 
better than that of the Presbyterian bodies. 2 This view of the 
comparative merits of the respective systems of discipline of 
the two bodies is strangely optimistic, and hardly accords with 

1 Serious Address, 103. 

2 " Our Bishop," says he, " has a Patent from the King to exercise Jurisdic- 
tion in this Country : He appoints Commissaries in each Government ; who 
can call any clergyman to account for misdemeanors, and, taking to his assist- 
ance the neighboring clergy, can suspend him. And if, after the Bishop has 
silenced him, he still persists to officiate as a member of the Church, the 
King's officers may be obliged to apprehend and imprison him. Because the 
Bishop is the King's minister as well as Christ's, whereas Yours is neither, 
I fear" {Calm and Dispassionate Vindication, 37-38). 



144 THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY. 

the opinions on the same subject usually put forth in appeals 
for an American episcopate. Scattered through the book are 
several rather striking examples of the author's calmness and 
dispassionateness, as, for instance, the following sentence : 
" Mr. Hobart has raked together a large heap of vulgar trash, 
which he calls new, because nobody was ever so weak or child- 
ish as to put it in print before ; so he tells us of the danger of 
tithes, if the Church should prevail in New England." 1 

Two years later, Hobart wrote in reply to the above vindica- 
tion : A Second Address to the Members of the Episcopal Sepa- 
ration in Nezv-England occasioned by the Exceptions made to the 
former, by Dr. Johnson, Mr. Wetmore, Mr. Beach, and Mr. Caner, 
to which was appended a letter from Moses Dickinson " in An- 
swer to some Things Mr. Wetmore has charged him with." In this 
second address, which goes over much the same ground as its 
predecessor, one of the few new points which the author takes 
up is the question of the establishment, in opposition to the 
position held by Douglass in his Summary? A reply which 
Beach wrote in the same year to Hobart' s Second Address 
brought this particular controversy to a close ; 3 but several 
things go to show that there was at least a measure of continuity 
between this and the later Mayhew controversy. 4 At all events, 
raising as it did many of the questions later brought up for 
consideration, it was certainly a forerunner of that stirring dis- 
cussion. 

Even as early as the time of the Hobart controversy, many 
of the New Englanders had awakened to what they considered 

1 Calm and Dispassionate Vindication, 38. 

2 William Douglass, A Summary, Historical and Political, of the First 
Planting, Progressive Improvements, and Present State of the British Settle- 
ments in North-America (see particularly the edition of 1755, ii. 120, note). 
Hobart bases his argument on citations from the letter of the lords justices to 
Governor Dummer, written in 1725, and from that of Bishop Gibson to Dr. 
Colman, May 24, 1735 {Second Address, 37-38). Cf. above, p. 128. 

8 Foote, Annals of King ] s Chapel, ii. 250-251. 

4 For example, a letter from Bishop Seeker to Dr. Johnson, July 19, 1759 
(Chandler, Life of Johnson, Appendix, 178-179), from which it appears that 
Johnson had been sending him the various contributions made by both sides 
to the discussion. Both were parties to the Mayhew controversy. 



THE CAUSES OF THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY. 145 

to be the dangers which might be apprehended from the intro- 
duction of an Episcopal hierarchy into their midst. A good 
example of the most extravagant expressions of such fears may 
be found in a sermon preached by Jonathan Mayhew, January 
30, 1750, and afterward published. " People have no security," 
said the preacher, " against being unmercifully priest-ridden but 
by keeping all imperious bishops, and other clergymen who 
love to lord it over God's heritage, from getting their feet into 
the stirrup at all." 2 Opinions of this stamp were, however, 
probably not widely prevalent at this time ; 2 it was only with 
the outbreak of the Mayhew agitation in the early sixties that 
the community at large became thoroughly roused. 

Like all historical phenomena, the Mayhew controversy, 
although it had an immediate and a specific occasion, was 
really the outcome of causes slowly developing in an environ- 
ment favorable to their growth. As has been noticed, there 
had been for many years, among the Independents, evidences 
of a strong hostility to the extension of the episcopal system 
in the colonies, or at least to the introduction of bishops. This 
opposition, dormant so long as there was nothing to call it forth, 
would naturally spring up whenever there seemed to be any 
indication that the hopes of their opponents were likely to be 

1 Mellen Chamberlain, John Adams, 30. 

2 Foote {Annals of King's Chapel, ii. 251) thinks that the following letter 
from Secretary Willard to Governor Phips (Shirley was absent in England 
from 1749 to 1753), written December 12, 1750, expressed the more sober 
sentiment of the community : " As to the Project of sending Bishops into 
America (the principal Subject of your Letter), I need say but little in that 
Matter considering how fully and freely I express'd myself in a Letter I wrote 
to your Excy. in June last, which lest it should have miscarried, I now send 
you a Copy of. I can only add that the universal dissatisfaction to that 
Scheme among Persons of our Communion is nothing lessened from the 
Proposals your Excy. was pleased to send me with your Letter before men- 
tioned, of the Restrictions therein contained as to the Exercise of the Epis- 
copal Function here, those Persons expecting that if once Bishops should be 
settled in America, it would be judged for some Reasons or other necessary to 
extend their Jurisdiction equally to what that Order of Men are possessed of 
in Great Britain : However, It is supposed our Sentiments in these Matters 
will have but little Influence w th those Gentlemen in England who have the 
Management of this Affair." 

10 



146 THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY. 

realized. Such an occasion came with the approach of the 
peace which was to end the Seven Years' War. Up to this 
time the English government had been too much occupied with 
its foreign relations to attend to anything else, but with the ces- 
sation of hostilities it would be likely to have time and oppor- 
tunity to give attention to domestic and colonial concerns. 
Thomas Seeker, now Archbishop of Canterbury, had, it was well 
known, long had at heart the matter of the American episcopate, 
and had often expressed the intention of taking the first favor- 
able opportunity to press it upon the attention of the English 
government. The time now seemed ripe for the realization of 
his purpose ; accordingly the apprehensions of the Independents 
and the hopes of the Episcopalians were proportionally excited. 1 
Such was the state of things when the death of the Reverend 
Ebenezer Miller, missionary at Braintree of the Society for 
Propagating the Gospel, occurred, February 11, 1763. Shortly 
after his decease there appeared a newspaper article attacking 
the policy of the Society in sending missionaries into New 
England, where they were not needed. In reply to this the 
Reverend East Apthorp, missionary at Cambridge, wrote a series 
of Considerations on the Institutio7i and Conduct of the Society 
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. There- 
upon Jonathan Mayhew, a prominent Congregational minister 
in Boston, published his Observations on the Charter and Conduct 
of the Society, in the course of which he not only attacked the 
Society for sending missionaries into New England, 2 but also 

J Cf. Chandler, Life of Johnson, 113-114. The same author (pp. 111-113) 
describes the origin and external history of the controversy. A good account 
written from the Puritan standpoint may be found in Alden Bradford, Life of 
Mayhew, 240-248. Porteus {Life of Seeker, 60), describing the controversy 
from the point of view of a member of the Church of England, characterizes 
the opposition of the " Dissenters " in England and America as based upon 
" very unreasonable and groundless Jealousies of the Church of England, and 
its Governors." Cf. Bradford {Life of Mayhew, 242), who says that there 
was just cause to fear that the English wanted to "episcopize" New England, 
and that the " High-Tory " party in the mother country agreed to gain control 
of the colonies in ecclesiastical and civil affairs. For a modern account of the 
controversy, see Foote, Annals of King's Chapel, ii. ch. xvii. 

2 On the title-page of the Observations is a quotation from Paul to the 
Galatians, describing the Society's missionaries as " Brethren unawares brought 



MAYHEW'S "OBSERVATIONS." 147 

took occasion to censure the proposed scheme for the introduc- 
tion of an American episcopate. It is at this point that the 
agitation becomes of interest to us. 1 

This pamphlet of Mayhew's appeared in 1763. The author 
sets out by attempting to prove that the Society for Propagating 
the Gospel has long had " a formal design to root out Presby- 
terianism " and to establish episcopacy and bishops in the col- 
onies, and that, in pursuance of this plan, it has in a great 
measure neglected the important ends of its institution. 2 In 
support of his position he cites several selections from the pub- 
lications of the Society. 3 His conclusion is that New England, 

in, who come in privily to spy out our Liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, 
that they might bring us into bondage : To whom we gave place by subjec- 
tion, no, not for an hour ; that the truth of the Gospel might continue with 
you." 

1 There were in all four replies to Mayhew's Observations, three of which 
came from America. Two of these were short and unimportant, one of them 
appearing at Portsmouth and the other at Newport. The third, which Brad- 
ford {Life of May hew, 279-280) calls a " smart rather than an able perform- 
ance, 1 ' was published anonymously, under the title A Candid Examination of 
Dr. Mayhew's Observations. The authorship has been ascribed both to 
Henry Caner and Dr. Johnson, but the weight of evidence seems to give it to 
the former. The English publication, an Answer to the Observations, which 
also appeared anonymously, was later learned to have been written by a 
person no less important than Archbishop Seeker. Other noteworthy con- 
tributions to the discussion were a Defence by Mayhew of his own Observa- 
tions, and a final Review of the whole controversy by East Apthorp. See 
Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 148 fF. ; Perry, American 
Episcopal Church, i. 411 ff. 

2 Observations, 103. 

3 For example : " The want of a Bishop or suffragan in those parts was 
often complained of. And this matter has been carried as far as the diffi- 
culties in it would hitherto allow, and is under such farther solicitation and 
advances, that we hope shortly to see a happy success of it " {Ibid. 105, citing 
Account of the Society, 1706, p. 74). And again : " It having been frequently 
represented to the Society, that there is great want of a Bishop to govern 
those missionaries, whom the Society has or shall, from time to time, send 
over to New-England, — as well as the rest of the clergy in those and the 
adjacent colonies ; and to ordain others, and to confirm . . . ; this matter 
has been most seriously considered of, and is yet depending before the Society, 
and in the mean time, and till they can bring it to bear, they are looking out 
for the best and most commodious place, — to fix the See for the said Bishop " 
{Ibid, citing the Society's Abstract, 171 1, pp. 27-28). 



148 THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY. 

and indeed all the colonies, have been from the beginning of the 
century in danger from the Society's episcopizing influence. 1 

Passing over the endless personalities and questions of purely 
theological import which abound in this as in all other contro- 
versial pamphlets of the period, let us consider for a moment the 
substance of Mayhew's argument. Of the truth of his assertion 
that the Society had from the very moment of its inception 
striven to push the cause of the episcopate, there can be no 
doubt ; on the other hand, his further contention that such had 
been its only, or its chief, aim is open to question. That its 
missionary efforts had often been primarily directed toward the 
advancement of its own church is perhaps true, but it would be 
hard to find a church which has not proceeded along the same 
lines ever since missionary work began. Rightly or wrongly, 
the Episcopalians believed — and in this they were not alone 
among the religious bodies of that or of any other period before 
or since — that their own method of worship was the one most 
in accordance with the will of God. Conceiving, moreover, that 
a hierarchy was absolutely necessary for the existence of their 
system of doctrine and discipline, they sought to establish it in 
America, as they did in any other place or country where their 
church was represented. Whether it was wise to push the 
matter in the colonies at this time is another question ; whether 
the Independents were justified in their suspicions of what might 
result from the rule of bishops once established is, in this con- 
nection, equally beside the point. The fact is that the earliest 
relations of the Independents with the Church of England had 
made them desirous, and justly so, to keep as far as possible 
from the sphere of her influence ; and, whenever they had any- 
thing to do with the establishment, the memory of this early 
experience came into their minds and warped their judgments. 

1 " The affair of Bishops has lately been, and probably now is in agitation 
in England. . . . And it is supposed by many, that a certain superb edifice 
in a neighbouring town, was even from the foundation designed for the Palace 
of one of the /tumble successors of the apostles. . . . What other new world," 
he asks, "remains as a sanctuary for us from our oppressions, in case of need? 
Where is the Columbus to explore one for, and pilot us to it, before we are 
consumed by the flames, or deluged in a flood of episcopacy ? " {Observa- 
tions, 107, 156.) 



SUSPICIONS AS TO THE SOCIETY'S MOTIVES. 149 

Jonathan May hew was a true Puritan ; and it was the limitations 
that encompassed him ipso facto which caused him, although pro- 
ceeding from premises that were in the main true, to draw con- 
clusions concerning the mainspring and motives of the action of 
the Society which from the evidence before him were hardly 
tenable. 

Mayhew's pamphlet called forth great applause from his 
fellow-believers, and contributed much to heighten the suspi- 
cions already latent in their minds. The effect extended to the 
mother country also. For example, Dr. Lardner of London, in 
a letter written July 18, 1763, in acknowledgment of the receipt 
of a copy of the Observations, commented on the strong proba- 
bility that bishops would soon be sent to America, and echoed 
the suspicions of the Society which Mayhew had expressed. 1 
" The present Archbishop of York, then bishop of St. Asaph's," 
he says, " at Bow Street church, in his sermon to the Society, 
. . . told his congregation without reserve, that the business of 
that society was not so much to increase the number of Chris- 
tians by conversion of the Indians, as to ttnite the subjects of 
Great Britain in one communion!' 2 This quotation, which, torn 
from the context, appears to mean more than it really does, 
hardly justifies the assertion made by the author of the Annals 
of Kings Chapel that the Society for Propagating the Gospel 
"seemed to have been turned from the true objects of mission- 
ary work into a means for undermining and ultimately destroy- 
ing the system of Independency itself." 3 As a matter of fact, 
whatever intentions the Society had as to the extension of epis- 
copacy in the colonies were held at least as strongly in the first 
years of its existence as later, indeed one might almost say 
more strongly. The important thing was that the attitude of 
mind of the Independents had changed, and, as the breach with 
the mother country drew nearer and nearer, led them more and 

1 Bradford, Life of Mayhew, 269. 

2 Foote, Annals of King's Chapel, ii. 251, citing Bradford, Life of Mayhew, 
271. 

3 Foote's whole account {Annals, ii. ch. xvii., "Episcopacy and the May- 
hew Controversy ") relies too much on Dr. George E. Ellis to be strictly 
impartial. It is, to a considerable extent, made up of quotations from a manu- 
script lecture by Dr. Ellis on the " Episcopal controversy." 



150 THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY. 

more to suspect the aims and to question the motives of the 
Society; whether justly or unjustly, the historical effect was 
the same. 

Mayhew's Observations was answered in the same year by 
A Candid Examination, presumably written by Henry Caner, 
rector of King's Chapel, Boston. A detailed examination of this 
pamphlet is hardly necessary for the purposes of this study. It 
is taken up mainly with a discussion of Mayhew's character in 
general as shown in his works, of the motives actuating the con- 
duct of the Society, and finally with an attempt to prove that 
the Independent churches of New England are not established, 
but that the Church of England is the established form of 
worship in the colonies. 1 

Another reply to May hew was that of the Reverend Arthur 
Browne of Portsmouth, published also in 1763 under the title 
Remarks on Dr. Mayhew's Incidental Reflections relative to the 
Church of England, as contaijied in his Observations, etc. This 
effusion is interesting upon two grounds : first, as an illustration 
of the methods of argumentation employed by a class of men of 
that time who, as Ruskin fitly says, mistook pugnacity for 
piety ; 2 in the second place, for the charming frankness of the 

1 In support of his position the author cites several acts of Parliament — 
particularly the Act of Union, and also a letter to the Reverend Thomas 
Foxcroft, published in 1745, in which the following statement occurs: "The 
King (under God) is the supreme head of the church of England, and if he 
had not appointed an ordinary over New-England, it would have remained 
under his own immediate ecclesiastical jurisdiction as supreme head. But it 
is well known that his late Majesty in the first year of his reign, did impower 
the Bishop of London, under the great seal, to exercise jurisdiction over the 
clergy in the plantations, which were not in any Diocess, but remained under 
the immediate jurisdiction of the King" (Candid Examination, 39). 

2 See, for example, a passage in which Browne alludes to the "fanatic ravings 
of his [Mayhew's] predecessors the Oliverian holders-forth, whose spittle he 
hath lickM up, and coughed it out again, with some addition of his own filth 
and phlegm " (Remarks, 24) . Compare with this an " Advertisement " of " a 
Certain Jonathan Mayhew, an independent Holder-forth in Boston" a broad- 
side that appeared at about the same time. Two extracts from it are especially 
markworthy : " And if he was treated according to his demerits, a strong-toed 
Shoe, or an Oaken Plant [plank?], well applied, would be quite gentle and 
seasonable. . . . And . . . if the said May hew should print any more such 
foul-mouthed anonymous Papers, tending to vilify Characters," concludes the 



ARCHBISHOP SECKER'S "ANSWER? 151 

author. He readily admits the truth of the design charged 
to the Society, that it is seeking to settle bishops in North 
America, and justifies it on the ground that bishops are an 
indispensable limb of the Church of England system. Indeed, 
he adds, those who had been complaining of the irregularity and 
want of discipline among the Episcopalian clergy in the colonies 
ought to agree to the necessity of an episcopate to oversee 
their conduct. Regarding Mayhew's apprehension that episco- 
pacy once firmly established would tend to drive out Presbyteri- 
anism, he says cheerfully : " If presbytarianism, as he calls the 
prevailing religion of the country, be disposed to go off, and 
make room for it's betters, let it go. But nobody has any 
thoughts of driving it away by force." 1 Moreover, supposing 
the Episcopalians come to a majority in America, what of it ? 
In that case, if the colonists should be taxed for the support of 
bishops and for official tests, it would simply be by the wish of 
the majority, for the Episcopalians would be in the majority. 2 
Such opinions as these could hardly be reassuring to a people 
jealous to the last degree of its liberties in church and state ; 
but they were not sanctioned, or at least not openly, by the 
majority of those of Browne's persuasion. 

The pamphlet on the episcopal side which attracted most 
attention was the so-called Answer to Dr. Mayhew's Observa- 
tions. This appeared anonymously, but was later discovered to 
have been written by Archbishop Seeker. The gist of the 
argument is that the Church of England is, in its constitution, 
episcopal ; that it is already established in some of the colonies ; 
that in others where it is not established there are many Episcopa- 
lians needing its ministrations ; that, in a land where there is any 
pretence of toleration, the members of this church should enjoy 
that privilege in full — should have bishops and other necessary 
officers. 3 The author then proceeds to sketch a plan of what 
the proposed bishops would be allowed to do and what not to 

advertiser, " I will advertise him again in such a Manner, as that his whole 
Character shall be known." 

1 Remarks, 26. 

2 Ibid. 28-29. 

3 Answer, 50-51. 



152 THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY. 

do, a plan which corresponds in its essentials to that which 
Bishop Butler had drawn up in 1750. 1 This, he assures his 
readers, is the real and only scheme of episcopal establishment 
which has ever been proposed for America, " and whoever hath 
heard of any other, hath been misinformed through Mistake or 
Design. " 2 Bishop Porteus, the biographer of Seeker, remarks 
that " the Strength of the Argument, as well as Fairness and 
good Temper, with which this Answer was written, had a con- 
siderable Effect on all impartial Men, and even on the Doctor 
himself." 3 This statement is, in the main, correct. Seeker 
was too politic and conciliatory, and indeed too refined and cul- 
tivated a gentleman, to descend to the low abuse and vulgar 
personalities which characterized many of the contributions to 
the discussion. While he said nothing particularly new, yet the 
moderation of tone which he almost habitually employed could 
not but have had some influence in allaying the fiery heat of the 
zealots of both parties. 4 

The many lesser pamphlets which appeared during the period 
will not be considered here, for they contain little that was not 
touched upon by the leading writers. Now and again, how- 
ever, they bring out an interesting point. For example, the 

1 See above, pp. 122-124. 

2 Answer, 51. 

8 Life of Seeker, 59. 

4 Yet Seeker was far from receiving the reward which his moderation de- 
served. His biographer, Porteus, complains that " Posterity will stand amazed 
when they are told, that on this Account [his advocacy of an episcopate for 
America] his Memory has been pursued in Pamphlets and News-papers with 
such unrelenting Rancour, such unexampled Wantonness of Abuse, as he 
would scarce have deserved, had he attempted to eradicate Christianity out of 
America, and to introduce Maho7netanism in its Room" {Life of Seeker, 66). 
The following lines, written by an Episcopalian who happened to be opposed 
to the introduction of bishops, bear witness to the justness of Porteus's com- 
plaint : " As to Seeker, he is laid in his grave : disturb not his slumber. His 
character no more than his body, can endure the keen question of the searching 
air. Unless you would give another specimen of your friendship, cause him 
not to stink to futurity " (Purdie and Dixon's Virginia Gazette, July 18, 1 771). 
Nevertheless, Seeker's reasonableness, ability, and courtesy were pleasantly 
acknowledged by his opponent Mayhew : see, for example, Protestant Epis- 
copal Historical Society, Collections, i. 149, citing Mayhew's Remarks, 3 ; Perry, 
Ajnerican Episcopal Church, i. 412. 



MAYHEW'S "DEFENCE OF THE OBSERVATIONS:" 153 

author of a work entitled The Claims of the Church of England 
seriously Examined asks : " Is the American bishop to touch 
or affect no man's property ? is he to make no alteration in 
the civil condition of any of the people ? on what then must 
he maintain his episcopal ^port and dignity? — on American air 
only ? " 2 

Dr. Mayhew replied to the Candid Examination and the 
Answer in two separate pamphlets. The title of the first is a 
bit belligerent ; 2 but, since the ground gone over is much the 
same as that in his earlier argument, the details need not be 
considered. One point, however, may be touched upon with a 
word. In the course of his discussion; Mayhew takes occasion 
to answer an assertion made by his opponents, to the effect 
that the Episcopalians in Massachusetts are unreasonably taxed 
for the support of divine worship in the manner established by 
the laws of the province : he points out that, by a perpetual 
law passed by the government there, they are exempted from 
taxes for the support of ministers and churches not of their own 
denomination. 3 His manner of stating the case is rather strik- 
ing : " I have been informed," says he, " whether rightly or not, 
that his Excellency then in the chair, when the aforesaid act of 
exemption was passed, received the thanks of the then bishop 
of London for his service therein ; as having contributed his 
endeavours to relieve the members of the church of England 
from an inconvenience or hardship, not from an illegal oppression, 
which they had long labor'd under." 4 The act referred to, 
passed in 1742, did not emanate from the spontaneous will of 
the representatives of the people, but owed its passage to the 
efforts of the governor. Since, moreover, its provisions seem not 
to have been strictly enforced, and since it offered only a partial 

1 C/aims, 17. 

2 A Defence of the Observations on the Charter and Conduct of the Society 
for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, against an Anony?nous 
Pamphlet falsly intitled, A Candid Examination of Dr. Mayhe-urs Observa- 
tions, fa^c, and also against the Letter to a Friend annexed Thereto, said to 
Contain a Short Vindication of said Society, by one of its Me?nbers (Boston, 
1763). 

8 See Massachusetts Province Laws (1742, ch. 8), iii. 25. 
4 Defence, 50. Cf. Foote, Atmals of King ] s Chapel, ii. 265. 



154 THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY. 

amelioration of existing conditions, the Episcopalians still la- 
bored under a substantial grievance. 1 

In Mayhew's reply to Seeker's Answer, according to the 
sub-title of the London edition, 2 " the Scheme of sending 
Bishops to America is particularly considered; and the In- 
conveniences that might result from it to that country, if 
put into Execution, both in civil and religious Respects, are 
represented." It is significant that here for the first time, 
from the Independent side at least, the question of establish- 
ing bishops in the colonies takes its place as the main topic of 
the controversy. This was a result of the line of argument 
adopted in the Answer. Mayhew begins by pointing out that 
Seeker's statement that his Observations was written partly 
against the Church of England in general, partly against the 
conduct of the Society, and partly against the project of appoint- 
ing colonial bishops, is incorrect; for what Seeker has said 
about bishops is, he shows, incidental to what he has said about 
the Church of England. With regard to the latter subject he 
says, " It was by no means my design in this publication, to enter 
into the controversy betwixt the church of England and us ; " 3 
but, since the author of the Answer has dragged in the ques- 
tion of the episcopate, he professes his perfect readiness to 
discuss it. 4 

He understands his opponent's reasons for advocating an 
American episcopate to be, in substance, those more dis- 
tinctly enumerated in the Abstract of the Society for 171 5, 
namely to provide the proper functionaries, (i)"to rule and 
govern well those people who are desirous to be committed to 
their charge," (2) " to defend and protect both the clergy and the 

1 In Foote's Annals, ii. 252, occurs this statement : " Their [the Independ- 
ents'] toleration of episcopacy, under the new political conditions, may have 
been compulsory, but it appears to have been sincere, so long as it was not 
made the cover of unfriendly interference. 1 ' The evidence which we have on 
this point indicates quite the contrary view. 

2 Remarks on an Anonyjnous Tract, entitled, An Answer to Dr. Mayhem's 
Observations . . . Being a Second Defence of the Observations (Boston, 1764; 
reprinted London, 1765). 

3 Remarks, 4-5 . Cf . Observations, 151. 

4 Remarks, 56. 



MAYHEW S "SECOND DEFENCE." 155 

laity," (3) "to unite the clergy themselves, and reduce them to 
order" and (4) "to confirm new converts from schism ... in 
ordaining ministers from amongst themselves ; in confirming 
weak brethren, and blessing all manner of people susceptible of 
such holy impressions, as are made by the imposition of the bishop's 
hand's." 1 

Recurring to the plan as sketched by the author of the Answer, 
he admits that the proposal is presented from " a more plausible 
and less exceptionable point of view " than he has ever seen it 
presented from before, for the reason that the bishops here sug- 
gested are, first, not to meddle with those not churchmen ; sec- 
ondly, not to have any power in matrimonial or testamentary 
cases, or to infringe on the functions of the governors and 
magistrates, or in any way diminish the powers of the laity, and, 
lastly, not to be settled in any but Episcopal colonies. 2 While 
Mayhew in this concession tries to do justice at least to the more 
reasonable demands of his opponents, he displays at the same 
time a rather curious ignorance of what had been really asked, 
for some time past, by the less extreme among the advocates for 
an American episcopate. The plans proposed by Sherlock and 
Butler, 3 for example, had called for not a whit more than that 
drawn up by Seeker in the Answer. Sherlock's plan, designed 
only for the eyes of the king and the chief officers of state, was 
of course inaccessible ; but that of Butler, expressly intended 
for the consideration of the colonists, had, as we have seen, 
actually been sent to New England. 4 In view of this fact, May- 
hew's statement that the scheme as presented in the Answer is 
quite different from the one which he and others of his persua- 
sion had supposed the Episcopalians to have in mind, and his 
allusions to a certain " superb house " which he had supposed to 
be the designed residence for a New England bishop, 5 carry 

^Remarks, 56-57, citing the Society's Abstract, 1715, pp. 53-54. 

2 Remarks, 57-58. 

3 See above, pp. 122-124, an d below, Appendix A, No. xii. 

4 See above, p. 124, note 1. 

5 Mayhew refers here to the house still standing in Cambridge, built (prob- 
ably in 1 761) by the Reverend East Apthorp. It is situated between Massa- 
chusetts Avenue and Mount Auburn Street, directly opposite Gore Hall, the 
Harvard University Library, and is popularly known as the " Bishop's Pal- 



156 THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY. 

hardly the weight which they otherwise might. The same 
criticism applies to his objection that, although he regards the 
project as he now understands it to be very reasonable, he can 
hardly accept it as authoritative, since it comes from an un- 
known source. 1 

Mayhew believes, however, that, even though bishops should 
come to the colonies with the limited powers proposed, it is, 
from the nature of their relations with their English brethren, 
extremely unlikely that they would long be contented to main- 
tain a position inferior to theirs, " without any of their temporal 
power and grandieur . . . and consequently wanting that author- 
ity and respect which, it might be pleaded, is needful. Ambi- 
tion and avarice," he continues sententiously, "never want 
plausible pretexts, to accomplish their end." 2 At all events, 
the colonists, he thinks, are much safer without bishops; for, 
if they were once settled, pretexts might easily be found for 
increasing their power. For example, he adds, it is very natu- 
ral to fear that by virtue of the establishment of bishops the 
number of Episcopalians might increase to such an extent as to 
attain a majority in the legislatures, and thereby secure, per- 
haps, not only an establishment of the Church of England, but 
also taxes for the support of bishops, test acts, ecclesiastical 
" courts, and what not. 3 These matters are at this time, he 
thinks, all the more worthy of consideration, because the colo- 
nists have already got wind of the fact that " high-church tory- 

ace" (cf. S. A. Drake, Historic Fields and Mansions of Middlesex, 196- 

J97). 

1 Remarks, 59-60. 

2 Ibid. 60. 

3 Ibid. 62-64. In justice to Mayhew, it must be admitted that one of the 
most important concessions of Butler, Seeker, and Sherlock, namely, that 
bishops should not be sent to New England, was not agreed to by the lead- 
ing Episcopal clergymen of that province. Compare letters from Timothy 
Cutler and Henry Caner to Bishop Sherlock, April 24, 1751, and May 6, 1751, 
respectively (Fulha?n MSS., reprinted below, Appendix A, No. x.). These 
letters were privately written to his Lordship. In view of the public testi- 
mony made by these gentlemen on the 28th of the previous November (see 
above, p. 124, with note), there seems to be pretty certain evidence of 
double-dealing on their part. Strangely enough, Perry omitted to print the 
letters in his papers relating to Massachusetts. 



MAYHEW'S FINAL POSITION. 157 

principles and maxims " have, under the new king, once more 
found favor since their overthrow in 171 5 and 1745. 1 

It was here, indeed, that the strength of the Independents' 
position lay. Even admitting the single-mindedness and purity 
of motive of the pro-episcopal party, — a thing which, by the 
way, they seldom did, — they might still very correctly main- 
tain that no one could answer for the future. Moreover, just 
at this moment, when the colonists were tending more and more 
toward a separation from the mother country as a result of their 
long independent growth, when their newly-attained freedom 
from the dangers of French attack made such a divergence, for 
the first time, possible, and when certain specific encroachments 
on the part of the English government made it for their interest 
to stand on their own bottom, 2 they were hardly in a position to 
accept any innovation which would offer the least menace to 
their liberties. Hence the efforts of the Episcopalians to push 
their plan at this time was at least one of the causes tending to 
accentuate that growing alienation between Great Britain and 
her colonial subjects beyond the seas which prepared the ground 
for the Revolution soon to follow. 

Though the calmness of temper which Seeker manifested in 
his Answer had a soothing effect on Mayhew, causing him, in 
his last contribution to the discussion, to moderate his tone and 
modify the violence of his expressions, it had no effect whatever 
in shaking his fundamental convictions on the point at issue. 
Such concessions as he seems to make are merely apparent 
yieldings. When he says, for example, " I think it but justice 
to him [the author of the Answer] to acknowledge, that if such 
a scheme as he has proposed were to be put in execution, and 
only such consequences were to follow, as he professedly has in 
view, as the ends aimed at, I could not object against it; except 
only upon the same principle, that I object against the church 
of England in general, and should be sorry, from a regard to 
what I suppose a more scriptural way of worship, to see that 
church prevail here ; " and when, agreeing with his opponent 

1 Remarks, 63-67. 

2 For the last two points, compare Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Cen- 
tury, iii. ch. xii. 



158 THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY. 

that every man has a right to enjoy the full benefit of his reli- 
gion so long as the machinery he requires to secure it does not 
menace the interests of the community, he assures him that he 
would not prevent, even were it in his power, what would be 
merely religious toleration, 1 — when he says these things, he is 
in reality yielding nothing whatever. Since his qualifications 
rob his apparent concession of all practical weight, his posi- 
tion is, and remains, aside from a certain polite recognition 
of the courtesy of his opponent, essentially uncompromising. 
Of this attitude his closing remarks are a convincing proof. 
While acknowledging the author of the Answer to be a man of 
moderation and good sense, he nevertheless continues to think 
that he himself has not been wrong on any material point ; and 
he refuses, in case anything more should be written, to reply 
simply "for the sake of having the last word" on the subject. 2 

To this last work of Mayhew's the Reverend East Apthorp 
replied in a pamphlet entitled A Review of Dr. Mayhew's 
Remarks ■, etc. Since the Review contains little that is new, it 
may be passed without detailed consideration. The author takes 
Mayhew to task for his statement that he has been misinformed 
as to the grounds for the establishment of an American bishop, 
and quotes from Butler's plan of 1750, which he assumes that 
Mayhew must have seen. The burden of his argument is to 
prove that there is no basis in fact for the apprehensions which 
Mayhew has expressed. As to the question of maintenance, 
for example, — one of the greatest obstacles from the colonial 
point of view, — he assures his readers that if no money should 
be found for the support of bishops, no bishops would be sent. 3 
Mayhew, on reading Apthorp's work, said that he should not 
answer it. He died in the following year. 4 

Although Apthorp's Review was the last contribution made 
to the controversy by either side, the matter continued to be 
discussed in private correspondence for at least a year longer, 
Thomas Hollis, writing from London to Mayhew in 1765, 
expressed the wish that " Mr. Otis could be induced, in his bold 
and able manner," to write something against the scheme of 

1 Remarks, 77-78. 3 Review, 54-55, 60-61. 

2 Ibid. 85-86. 4 Porteus, Life of Seeker, 60. 



RESULTS OF THE DISCUSSION. 159 

episcopizing the colonies. According to Hollis, the advocates 
for bishops were more active and sanguine than ever ; and he 
feared, from the fact that they had won over some of the Eng- 
lish statesmen to their side, that their cause was in danger of 
triumphing. 1 But Hollis's wish remained unfulfilled, and the 
Mayhew controversy, as such, was at an end. 

A word as to the results of the discussion may be added. 
Naturally, both sides claimed a victory. Chandler says that it 
was the opinion of Dr. Johnson that the church had gained 
ground in the controversy, rather than lost it ; 2 but his state- 
ment has no basis in fact. It is most likely that the agitation 
had the effect of uniting the forces of those who were in favor 
of episcopacy, and, indeed, of inducing many who had hitherto 
been lukewarm to take a decided stand beside the leaders of 
their cause. On the other hand, it had precisely the same 
effect on the members of the opposing party, awakening large 
numbers for the first time to the realization of the danger which 
the leading Independents had for some time apprehended. As 
to the influence of the question on the history of the time, we 
have a decided opinion from an authority no less important 
than John Adams, who, writing of the causes of the Revolution, 
says : " If any gentleman supposes this controversy to be noth- 
ing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It [the 
plan of episcopizing the colonies, especially New England] 
spread an universal alarm against the authority of Parliament. 
It excited a general and just apprehension, that bishops, and 
dioceses, and churches, and priests, and tithes, were to be im- 
posed on us by Parliament. It was known that neither king, 
nor ministry, nor archbishops, could appoint bishops in Amer- 
ica, without an act of Parliament ; and if Parliament could 
tax us, they could establish the Church of England, with all 
its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and tithes, and prohibit 
all other churches, as conventicles and schism shops." 3 

1 Bradford, Life of May hew, 375-376. 

2 " As indeed it had always done in similar cases," adds Chandler {Life of 
Johnson, .,1 1 1-1 13) . 

3 Letter to H. Niles, February 13, 1818, in John Adams, Works, x. 288; 
also cited in Foote, Annals of King's Chapel, ii. 267, and in Bradford, Life of 



160 THE MAYHEW CONTROVERSY. 

Whether one agrees with this statement or not, is of no con- 
sequence ; its significance lies in the fact that it shows how 
much importance was attached to the episcopal controversy by 
a great political leader of the period, a leader who expressed and 
influenced the people of his day and generation. At least 
this much is certain: the controversy brought to a head appre- 
hensions which were at once a sign and a further cause of 
the political events of the period ; it sharpened the point at 
issue between the two great church parties, caused them to 
organize for the first time into two great opposing camps, and 
left them in this situation to face what was to come. 

May hew, 276. Bradford adds : " How then can it ever be said, the writings 
of Mayhew, against introducing and establishing episcopacy, were not impor- 
tant in support of the cause of civil and religious liberty, and against the 
claims of arbitrary power in the British parliament ? " 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY, 1767-1771. 

This disputation originated in some remarks made by John 
Ewer, Bishop of Llandaff, in a sermon which he preached before 
the Society for Propagating the Gospel at its annual meeting in 
February, 1767. In the course of his discourse, he animadverted 
upon the meagreness of the provisions for religious instruction 
in the colonies ; and, after pointing out what the Society had 
done toward supplying that need, he went on to bewail the fact 
that there was still a dearth of native ministers in the country, 
a fact which he attributed to the absence of resident bishops. 
He waxed especially eloquent in detailing the hardships to 
which the candidates were subjected in being forced to come to 
England for orders. "What encouragement," he asked, "have 
the inhabitants of these regions to qualify themselves for holy 
orders, while, to obtain them, they lie under the necessity of 
crossing an immense Ocean, with much inconvenience, danger 
and expence ; which those who come hither on that errand can 
but ill bear. And if they have the fortune to arrive safe, being 
here without friends, and without acquaintances, they have the 
sad business to undergo, of presenting themselves unknown to 
persons unknown, without any recommendation or introduction, 
except certain papers in their pocket. Are there not circum- 
stances in this case, sufficient to deter every ordinary courage, 
and to dampt the most adventurous spirit." 1 Such is the burden 
of Ewer's claim. Dr. Charles Chauncy, a well-known Boston 
clergyman, in an open letter "to a friend," 2 undertook to answer 
Ewer's assertions. He quotes the statements noticed above, 
and declares that they are very much exaggerated as to both 
fact and implication. He says that the candidates do not go 

1 Chauncy, Letter to a Friend, 43, citing the Society's Abstract, 1 767, 
p. 21. Cf. also Letter, 45, citing Abstract, 22. 

2 Dated December 10, 1767, and published at Boston. 



1 62 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

at their own expense and unknown, or if they do happen 
to be unknown they are always in a position to make them- 
selves easily acquainted. 1 The want of ministers he attrib- 
utes to quite other causes than that assigned by the Bishop of 
Llandaff, — namely, to lack of sufficient opportunity for exercis- 
ing their functions, and to inadequate provision for their support. 
The real point aimed at in the introduction of bishops is, he 
asserts, not so much to increase the missionary force for spread- 
ing the Gospel among the heathen as to make the colonists turn 
Episcopalians, in order that the Church of England may obtain 
a majority over the other denominations, an exigency which, 
however, is not to be so much feared as the possibility that 
the bishops, once settled, would " make use of their superiority " 
to force the establishment willy-nilly on the inhabitants. 2 He 
goes on to say that in all the colonies only eight or nine Episco- 
pal churches are self-supporting, the rest (some sixty) being to 
a considerable extent dependent on the Society. In view of 
this fact, the conclusion is unavoidable that any further exten- 
sion of the Episcopal system would incur a grave expense, a 
consideration in which, he thinks, lies the chief objection to the 
plan. 3 

Passing on to Ewer's assertion that if the settlement of bish- 
ops be once secured, "the American Church will soon go out 
of its infant state ; be able to stand upon its own legs ; and 
without foreign help support and spread itself. Then the 

BUSINESS OF THIS SOCIETY WILL HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE 

happy issue intended." Chauncy concludes triumphantly: 
"The conduct of the Society has, for many years, given us 
reason to suspect their main view was to episcopize the colo- 
nies; but we were never before, that I know of, told so in 
direct terms." 4 This conclusion was hardly the one to be 
drawn from the Bishop of Llandaff 's statement, for it might very 
well have been the purpose of the Society to build up its church 
and make it self-supporting in order that its sphere of useful- 
ness might be as broad as possible. The results apprehended 
by Chauncy might, of course, have followed; but he certainly 

1 Letter to a Friend, 43-44. 3 Ibid. 48 ff. 

2 Ibid. 4.6-47- 4 letter to a Friend, 51. 



INGLIS'S "VINDICATION." 1 63 

finds no warrant for them in any statements which he quotes 
from the sermon of his opponent. 

Chauncy's letter was supplemented by A Letter to the Bishop 
of Llandaff from William Livingston, who was induced to take 
part in the discussion after a perusal of Chauncy's pamphlet, to 
which his attention had been drawn by seeing a long quotation 
from it in Chandler's Appeal to the Public. Livingston's argu- 
ment contains little that is new, and in arrangement and phras- 
ing is so similar to that of Chauncy that hostile critics have 
denounced it as a plagiarism. This charge, however, is rather 
too severe. Original the work certainly is not ; but the author 
is perfectly honest, for he not only at the outset refers to Dr. 
Chauncy as one to whom he has been indebted for several facts 
and observations, but frequently in the course of his work gives 
his predecessor in the field credit for many of the remarks 
which he quotes in regard to certain passages in the Bishop of 
Llandaff's sermon. 

The last word on the subject was said by Charles Inglis, 1 in 
A vindication of the Bishop of Llandaff's Sermon from the 
Gross Misrepresentations, and Abusive Reflections, contained in 
Mr. Wm. Livingston 's Letter to his Lordship with some addi- 
tional Observations on certain Passages in Dr. Chauncy's Remarks, 
&c. This pamphlet, which appeared anonymously, was signed 
by " A Lover of Truth and Decency." After devoting some 
sixty-two of his eighty-two pages to justifying the Bishop of 
Llandaff's assertions concerning the lack of sufficient missionary 
provision for America, he comes to closer quarters with his 
opponent. To Livingston's assertion that the " grand burden " 
of Ewer's sermon appeared to be an attempt to persuade the 
English people of the necessity of an American episcopate, he 
retorts that " the grand burden of Livingston's paper is to preju- 
dice the public against the plan, and thus to deprive colonial 
Episcopalians of the common rights and privileges of all Chris- 
tians." 2 It is in his postscript that the charge of plagiarism 
against Livingston first occurs. 3 Whether Inglis's argument 

1 At that time an Episcopal clergyman in New York. 

2 Inglis, Vindication, 64. Cf. Livingston, Letter, 21. 
8 Vindication, 70-82. 



1 64 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

silenced his opposers, whether they thought it not worth while 
to answer, or whether, as is most likely, interest in the dis- 
cussion was lost in a far more important and significant contro- 
versy which had already opened, may be left to the reader to 
answer for himself. We now pass on to consider the origin, 
progress, and result of that stirring pamphlet war between 
Thomas Bradbury Chandler x and Charles Chauncy which agi- 
tated the colonies during the years 1767-1771. 2 

Chandler, in his biography of Dr. Johnson, 3 tells us how his 
Appeal to the Public, which opened the controversy, came to be 
written. Johnson, it seems, thought that Seeker's Answer and 
Apthorp's Remarks, which explained the sort of episcopate 
desired, had not been sufficiently circulated, and that the disaf- 
fection of opponents was due chiefly to their ignorance of the 
true nature of the scheme. For this reason he desired to have 
further explained or reiterated the fact that no encroachment on 
the civil or religious liberties of any denomination was intended. 
Since, owing to a paralysis of the hand, he could not write him- 
self, he chose Chandler as a person suitable to undertake the 
task. Johnson's plan and selection were confirmed by a con- 
vention of the clergy of New York and New Jersey, which met 
in 1767. 4 This was an organization of comparatively recent 
origin, the first meeting having been held May 21, 1766, at the 
house of the Reverend Dr. Auchmuty, rector of Trinity Church, 
New York. The purpose of the association is best explained in 
the words of the following resolution then adopted : " The Clergy 
of the Province of New York taking into their serious considera- 
tion the present state of the Church of England in the Colonies, 

1 Chandler was rector of St. John's Church, Elizabethtown, New Jersey, 
from 1751-1790 (cf. title-page of A. H. Hoyt's Life of Chandler) . 

2 Good accounts of the external history of the controversy may be found in 
Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 1 51-153; and Perry, 
American Episcopal Church, i. 416-418. 

3 Pages 1 14-1 16. See also his advertisement to the Appeal, ix-xi. 

4 It resolved " that fairly to explain the plan on which American bishops 
had been requested, to lay before the public the reasons of this request, to an- 
swer the objections that had been made, and to obviate those that might be 
otherwise conceived against it, was not only proper and expedient, but a mat- 
ter of necessity and duty." (Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 415, from 
the original manuscript of the convention.) 



CHANDLER'S LETTER TO TERRICK. 165 

where it is obliged to struggle against the opposition of sectaries 
of various denominations, and labours under the want of the 
Episcopal Order, and all the advantages and blessings resulting 
therefrom ; agreed upon holding voluntary conventions, at least 
once in the year and oftener if necessity required, as the most 
likely means to serve the interests of the Church of England ; 
as they could then not only confer together upon the most likely 
methods, but use their joint influence and endeavours to obtain 
the happiness of Bishops, to support the Church against the 
unreasonable opposition given to it in the Colonies, and to culti- 
vate and improve a good understanding and union with each 
other." x On the 22d they sent a letter to the Society stating 
what they had done and outlining the purpose of their action. 2 
They continued their meetings from year to year until the eve 
of the Revolution. 3 

In the course of the year 1767, Chandler finished his Appeal 
to the Public in behalf of the Church of England in America.^ 
There is, among the manuscripts at Fulham, a letter which he 
sent to the Bishop of London, with a copy of his book. Per- 
haps an examination of this letter will serve to give an idea of 
the opinion which he held of his own work. What he has 
written, he informs his diocesan, expresses the opinions of the 
clergy in most of the colonies, and names some of the facts and 
reasons upon which these opinions are based. But, and this 
is markworthy, only some of these reasons are considered ; the 
rest are kept in the background, for, says Chandler, " There 
are some Facts and Reasons, which could not be prudently 
mentioned in a Work of this Nature, as the least Intimation of 
them would be of ill Consequence in this irritable Age and 
Country : but were they known, they would have a far greater 
Tendency to engage such of our Superiors, if there be any such 
as are governed by Political motives, to espouse the Cause of 
the Church of England in America, than any contained in the 

1 Perry, A7nerican Episcopal Church, i. 415, from the original manuscripts 
of the convention. 

2 Ibid. 416. 

3 The work of this convention will be considered in more detail in a later 
chapter. 

4 It was sent to the press on the 24th of June. 



166 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

Pamphlet. But I must content myself with having proposed 
those only which could be mentioned safely, and leave the 
event to Divine Providence." 1 

This confession is of the utmost significance in forming an 
ultimate judgment of the ensuing controversy, for it shows that 
Chandler could hardly have been perfectly open and straight- 
forward in his advocacy of the cause of an American episco- 
pate. 2 Moreover, various indications — as, for example, some 
expressions used by Johnson in his correspondence with the 
leading ecclesiastics in England, 3 and the conflicting assertions 
of Cutler and Caner already noted 4 — go to show that Chandler 
was not the only one involved. The fact that these leaders of 
the Church of England in America thought and acted in con- 
cert, and, furthermore, that many of them held well-known 
loyalist sympathies, makes the supposition possible that they 
had some ulterior motives in the introduction of bishops, which 
boded no good to the religious liberties of their fellow-colonists. 
Accordingly, while one must appreciate the deplorable position 
of the Church of England in America, and acknowledge the 
justice of the attempts of its members to free themselves from 
the hard conditions restricting them in the maintenance and 
propagation of their form of worship, one is forced to admit 
that the suspicions of their opponents had some foundation. 

To be sure, the condition of things following the passage 
and the repeal of the Stamp Act made it most unlikely that 
the English government would lend its aid to the machinations 
of the extremists among the pro-episcopal party; 5 but, even 

1 Chandler to Bishop Terrick, October 21, 1767, Fidham MSS. The whole 
letter is printed below in Appendix A, No. xiii. 

2 Chandler was an ardent loyalist, and either at this time or subsequently 
entered into a compact with Samuel Seabury and Charles Inglis " to watch 
and confute all publications in pamphlets or newspapers that threatened mis- 
chief to the Church of England and the British Government in America " 
(Beardsley, Life of Seabury, 30). 

3 Cf. above, pp. 1 06-1 10, passim, and below, ch. xi. passim. 

4 See above, p. 156, note 3. 

5 Chauncy, in his Appeal Answered, no, points out that the time for 
bringing up the matter was not favorable, since harmony had not been restored, 
as Chandler had assumed that it was. 



CHANDLER'S ''APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC:'' 167 

if it had before that time had any such intention, the determined 
attitude of the Independents had had the effect of checking, in 
its very conception, a plan likely to have been very dangerous 
in its ulterior consequences. 1 No one realized the situation in 
England better than Chandler ; hence, the wish with which he 
concludes his letter, that some one there would take up the 
cause and push it energetically, or, as he expresses it, " set it 
forth to advantage." With his letter and these preliminary 
considerations in mind, we may now proceed to consider 
Chandler's first contribution. 

He prefaces his work with the words of Justin Martyr : " We 
desire a fair Trial — if we are guilty, punish us ; if we are inno- 
cent, protect us." Then follows an advertisement to the reader, 
in which he draws attention to the fact that the Church of Eng- 
land is the only religious body in America not fully tolerated ; 
that, while even the Romish church is allowed bishops, the 
Anglican church is " left in a maimed state, lopt of Episcopacy, 
. . . And whence this disgraceful distinction ? " he asks, 
"whence this mark of distrust? what is the fear? what 
the danger? A few persons vested with authority to ordain 
ministers, to confirm youth, and to visit their own clergy. Can 
two or three persons, restrained to these spiritual functions, be 
dangerous to any in any matter ? in what ? or to whom ? Can 
they possibly, so limited, on any pretence whatever, attempt to 
molest any in their religious concerns ? Can they invade the 
rights and jurisdiction of magistrates ? Can they infringe the 
liberties of the people ? Can they weaken, or be thought dis- 
posed to weaken, the fidelity of the colonies to his Majesty, 
or their dependence on this country?" 2 Certainly, from a re- 
ligious point of view, it was unjust to deprive the members of 
the Church of England in America of so necessary a part of 

1 If the advocates of an American episcopate had ever had any chance of 
prevailing with the home government, it was in the interval between the close 
of the Seven Years' 1 War and the passage of the Stamp Act ; hence, if there 
was need of the stand so firmly taken by Mayhew, the time which he chose 
was most opportune. The attitude of the English officers of state toward the 
question after 1750 will be considered in a later chapter. 

2 Appeal to the Public, xi., quoting from the Bishop of Llandaff's Sermon, 
22-24. 



1 68 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

their system as bishops. Yet, if the case was so simple, and 
the intention so innocent, as Chandler here professes, why did 
he consider certain arguments in favor of the plan as unsafe to 
be put before the public, when avowedly his only motive in 
writing his book was to show the people in the colonies that the 
suspicions which impelled them to oppose the plan were un- 
founded and unjust? 

His argument is arranged under four heads: (i) the origin 
and nature of the episcopal office ; (2) reasons for sending bish- 
ops to America; (3) a plan by which they are to be sent; (4) a 
refutation of objections against the plan. Since the first point 
(which he considers in the first two of the eleven sections into 
which his work is divided) has no connection with the subject 
in hand, we may pass at once to sections iii.-vii. inclusive, in 
which he takes up his second point, namely, the need of an 
American episcopate. The functions of the desired bishops, he 
says, would be governing, confirming, and ordaining ministers. 
For the first of these offices there is a crying need, since the 
Church of England is practically without any form of govern- 
ment ; for, though the Bishop of London has taken some cog- 
nizance of those under his charge, he has been able to effect 
little, living, as he does, at a distance of three thousand miles. 1 
The offices of a bishop, he continues, are needed by two sorts 
of clergy, the good, who need his advice and encouragement, 
the bad, who need his coercive hand ; 2 moreover, the laws 
and canons enjoin a strict episcopal discipline and over- 
sight of the clergy, 3 which in the present state of things is 
impossible. 

With regard to ordination, Chandler thinks that under the 
existing conditions the difficulties are almost insurmountable, 
owing to the expense and hardship involved in crossing the 
Atlantic. The trip, he says, can hardly be made for less than 
;£ioo; and, further than that, out of fifty-two candidates who 
have gone to England for orders only forty-two have returned 
in safety. This state of affairs is, he thinks, responsible for an 
appalling lack of clergy, and can be remedied only by settling 

1 Appeal to the Public, 28-29. 2 Ibid. 33. 

9 Ibid. 31. 



CHANDLER'S "APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC:" l6g 

bishops in the colonies. 1 Still another evil lies in the fact that, 
since the candidates are often unknown to the Bishop of Lon- 
don, unworthy men often obtain ordination from him. 2 

He gives three main reasons why bishops have not hitherto 
been sent: first, because, since the country was originally set- 
tled by private adventurers chiefly of a dissenting faith, bishops 
of the Church of England have been little needed ; secondly, 
because, though they have since come to be necessary, the 
troublous times abroad have kept the home government too 
much occupied to attend to the spiritual wants of the clergy ; 
finally, because, though the officers of state have now time to 
consider the question, they will of their own accord take no 
steps for fear of infringing on the religious liberties of the dis- 
senters. 3 He thinks the present juncture favorable for the 
advancement of the plan, because Great Britain is at peace and 
the government has no other distracting occupation, and also 
because, from the recent large acquisition of Episcopalians, 
the need is more urgent than ever. 4 Hence, since the first two 
conditions which have operated against the realization of the 
project exist no longer, it is time to do away with the remaining 
one, and thereby bring the plan to fruition. This is the pur- 
pose of the Appeal to the Public. 

His next step is to define the plan upon which bishops are to 
be sent, for the enlightenment of such as oppose the project. 
These opposers he divides into three classes: (i) the enemies 

1 We have already met this argument in the consideration of the Bishop of 
LlandafPs sermon. Chandler gives some statistics for February, 1767: in 
New Jersey there were twenty-one parishes, of which eleven were without 
clergymen ; in Pennsylvania and the three lower counties outside of Philadel- 
phia, twenty-six churches and only seven clergymen; in North Carolina 
(according to a letter from Governor Dobbs to the Society, March 29, 1764), 
twenty-nine parishes, i.e. one for each county, and only six ministers. See 
Appeal to the Public, 34-35. 

*Ibid. 36. 

3 Ibid. 47-48. 

4 He estimates that at this time there were 3,000,000 British subjects in 
America, of whom 1,000,000 were Episcopalians {Ibid. 54-55). These figures 
are disputed : Chauncy, for example, says that there were only 26,000 Episco- 
palians north of Maryland, and only upward of 300,000 in the whole country 
{Appeal Answered, 114, 133-134). 



170 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

of all religions ; (2) the enemies, secret or open, to the Protes- 
tant religion in particular ; (3) those who, while friendly to reli- 
gion in general, fear that the extension of episcopacy may be 
prejudicial to the integrity of their property or religious liberty. 1 
It is mainly for the third class that the Appeal is intended ; for 
their benefit, therefore, are enumerated — in spite of the fact 
that the explanation has been so often made before — the pro- 
posed functions of an American episcopate, namely, " That the 
Bishops to be sent to America, shall have no Authority, but 
purely of a Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Nature, such as is 
derived altogether from the Church and not from the State — 
That this Authority shall operate only upon the Clergy of the 
Church, and not upon the Laiety nor Dissenters of any Denomi- 
nation — That the Bishops shall not interfere with the Property 
or Privileges, whether civil or religious, of Churchmen or Dis- 
senters — That in particular, they shall have no Concern with 
the Probate of Wills, Letters of Guardianship, and Administra- 
tion, or Marriage-Licences, nor be Judges of any Cases relating 
thereto — - But, that they shall only exercise the original Powers 
of their Office as before stated, i.e., ordain and govern the Clergy, 
and administer Confirmation to those who shall desire it." 2 

Having outlined the functions and limitations of the proposed 
episcopate, Chandler next proceeds to answer such objections 
as have been or may be urged against it. 3 He counts among 
the most serious of these one which was brought up by some of 
the London papers at the time of the Stamp Act agitation, to the 
effect that the discontent and uneasiness manifested by the 
colonists on that occasion were due in a great measure to 
the fear that bishops would be settled among them. This 
notion Chandler strenuously repudiates, challenging any one to 
find a trace of such an idea in any of the remonstrances of 
the time, and asserting most emphatically that the discontent 
then manifested was wholly due to what the colonists regarded 
as 'an unconstitutional oppressive Act." 4 

After considering and replying to the more general objections, 5 
he proceeds to a refutation of those of a more special nature. 

1 Appeal to the Public, § viii. 2 Ibid. 79. 3 Ibid. §§ ix.-xi. 

4 Ibid. 89. 5 They have been considered in chapter vi. above. 



ESTIMATES OF CHANDLER'S "APPEAL." 171 

For example, he assures his readers that there is no design of 
establishing ecclesiastical courts in America ; x that any appre- 
hension concerning tithes is wholly ungrounded ; that the colo- 
nists will not be taxed for the support of bishops, and, even 
if they should be, the amount would be very small, for there 
already existed in the hands of the Society a fund for the main- 
tenance of bishops, and if it should prove insufficient for the 
purpose, more could easily be raised. 2 Assurances as these 
were too vague to satisfy the class of opponents with whom 
Chandler had to deal. He utterly failed to answer satisfac- 
torily the question of the likelihood of a possible augmentation 
of the powers of bishops if once settled, and he even expressed 
opinions which, to say the least, would hardly tend to allay the 
suspicions which were growing stronger every day in the minds 
of the colonists. 3 

In general it may be said of Chandler's book that, from a 
religious point of view, it presented the case of the Episcopa- 
lians in a most convincing light. For a complete enjoyment of 
their form of worship, bishops were absolutely necessary both to 
maintain the system where it already existed and to propagate 
it where it did not exist. This fact was already admitted by the 
more reasonable among the anti-episcopal party ; but, unfortu- 
nately, the granting of the request for bishops was bound up 
with certain political consequences which an eminently practical 
people must perforce take cognizance of. The attempt to cope 
with this difficulty led Chandler to ground upon which he was 
not so sure-footed as in other parts of his Appeal. To be 

1 Appeal to the Public, 96. 

2 Ibid. 107-108. 

3 For example, a writer in the Boston Gazette, May 28, 1768, says: "The 
Appeal to the Public in favor of an American Episcopate is so flagrant an 
attempt to introduce the Canon Law, or at least some of the worst fruits of it, 
into the Colonies, hitherto unstained with such pollution, uninfected with such 
poison, that every friend of America ought to take the Alarm — Power, in any 
forms, and under any limitations, when directed only by human wisdom and 
benevolence, is dangerous ; the most terrible of all power that can be en- 
trusted to man is the Spiritual. 1 ' This paragraph was quoted by the London 
Chronicle, July 19, 1768. Chandler's admission concerning taxing was at once 
made capital of : see, for example, two articles by " Atlanticus," in the Lofidon 
Chronicle, June 27 and July 26, 1768. 



172. THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

sure, he satisfied himself by reiterating the very plausible and 
innocent-appearing plan which had often been sketched by his 
predecessors ; but such reasoning satisfied his opponents not a 
whit. Indeed, in view of what he wrote in his letter to the 
Bishop of London, it is hard to be sure that he himself was 
wholly sincere in the plan he here set forth. As a result, his 
book, instead of smothering the agitation, stirred it up to even 
greater heat. Proof of this fact is to be found both in particular 
pamphlets written in reply to his, and in the violent newspaper 
controversy which his book called forth. 1 

The Appeal was answered in the following year by Charles 
Chauncy, who, considering the four points of Chandler's argu- 
ment one after another, sought to show that the reasons alleged 
for an American episcopate were insufficient to justify its estab- 
lishment, and that, notwithstanding the recent apologetic, the 
objections against it remained in full force. His reasons for 
writing the Appeal Answered he declares in the advertisement 
to be, first, the solicitations of ''private friends," 2 and secondly, 
Chandler's statement that, if no further objections were offered 
against an American episcopate, it would be taken for granted 
that all parties were satisfied with the plan as set forth by him. 3 

Taking up first 4 the question of the necessity of bishops for 
purposes of discipline, 5 Chauncy points out that the Anglican 
bishops are not the real governors of the church, but are mere 
creatures of the state ; and that the Church of England, at least 
so far as its government is concerned, is a parliamentary church. 

1 Two newspaper writers at once took sides against the Appeal, the " Amer- 
ican Whig" and the "Centinel.'" This controversy in its many ramifications 
will be made the subject of a later chapter, in which numerous other contrib- 
utors will be mentioned and their main arguments considered. 

2 This is a sarcasm on Chandler, who said in his advertisement that he had 
been commissioned by the convention to write his Appeal. 

8 Chauncy's accusation, that the Episcopalians had kept secret their argu- 
ments for bishops until they were on the eve of accomplishing their purpose 
{Introduction to the Appeal Answered, 5-6), is manifestly contrary to fact. 

4 That is, first in respect to what concerns the present study. Chauncy's 
preliminary discussion is theological. 

6 In the course of his argument, he incidentally takes Chandler to task for 
advocating discipline for the clergy and not for the laity, a position which he 
considers to be illogical. See Appeal Answered, 69-70. 



CHAUNCY'S ANSWER TO THE "APPEAL? 173 

Such being the case, his conclusion is that a bishop of the pro- 
posed sort could do nothing in the way of enforcing discipline 
which a commissary might not equally well do, that is, un- 
less he employed the accessories in use in England, such as 
spiritual courts, institutions which, as the Appeal emphatically 
assures the public, it is not proposed to introduce into the 
colonies. 

Passing from the subject of discipline to that of ordination, the 
Answer devotes some pages to showing that Chandler's picture 
of the 'danger and hardship involved in the necessity of going 
to England for orders is very much overdrawn. 1 He also 
points out, what seems very true, that a commissary's testi- 
monial to a candidate would be as good a safeguard against 
unworthy ministers as a bishop's immediate oversight. 2 An- 
other point which, he says, seems to have been generally over- 
looked in the contemporaneous discussion, is that a large 
number of the unworthy clergymen consecrated for America 
are not those who go from the colonies to England for orders, 
but those sent from there ; for, since as a rule the most talented 
and capable clergymen prefer to remain in England, the colonies 
usually get only those who, from unfitness, either moral or intel- 
lectual, are unable to maintain their positions at home. 

In answer to an assertion often made, among others, by 
Chandler, that the proposed bishops would not be settled in 
the dissenting colonies, he answers that they would, neverthe- 
less, have power there, and would, moreover, be settled there as 
opportunity should arise. 3 

Another objection to the scheme for American bishops 
Chauncy finds in the fact that the question has been agitated 
almost wholly by the clergy, and by the laity scarcely at all. 
" It is to me," he says, " as well as to many I have conversed 
with upon this head, Episcopalians among others, very ques- 

1 In this respect Chauncy shows himself erroneous, unjust, and uncharitable. 

2 Appeal Answered, 87. 

9 Ibid. 101-102. It has already been shown that many of the prominent 
Episcopalian clergymen in New England, notably Timothy Cutler, rector of 
Christ Church, and Henry Caner of King's Chapel, were not in favor of ex- 
cluding the proposed bishops from New England (see above, p. 156, note 3). 



174 THE CHANDLER-CHAUJSrCY CONTROVERSY. 

tionable, whether, if the members of the Church of England, in 
these northern Colonies, were to give in their votes, and to do 
it without previous Clerical influence, they would be found to 
be on the side of an American Episcopate." 1 

In spite of Chandler's assurance to the contrary, 2 Chauncy 
expresses the fear that tithes might come with the bishops, 
and, in this connection, pounces on Chandler's incautious ad- 
mission that, if taxes should be laid on the colonists, the amount 
would be very small, perhaps fourpence on one hundred pounds, 
or about one six-thousandth of a man's income, a refusal to pay 
which would show that one was neither a " good subject" nor a 
good "member of society." Upon this Chauncy remarks, and 
with justice, although his language is a little extravagant, that 
he and those of his persuasion ought not to pay for that which 
their ancestors left England to escape — " the Episcopal yoke 
of bondage." 3 Nor does he allow to pass unnoticed another 
incautious admission of Chandler : that, " Should the govern- 
ment see fit hereafter to invest them (the proposed bishops) 
with some degree of civil power, worthy of their acceptance, 
which it is impossible to say they will not, yet it is inconceiv- 
able that any would thereby be injured." 4 

After seeking to meet Chandler's arguments point by point, 
Chauncy proceeds to treat of his main objections under five 
heads, as follows: (i) The government and discipline of the 
Church of England, under the proposed American episcopate, 
would not conduce to the best interests of the church itself, 
since the bishops would not have any power over the laity ; or 
to the interests of the bishops who should be sent, since their 
authority in a matter most essential would be thus restricted. 
(2) It would be inconsistent to have colonial bishops without 
ecclesiastical courts, if these institutions were to be continued 

1 Appeal Answered, 135-136. 

2 He is continually, either explicitly or implicitly, questioning Chandler's 
good faith. For example, he says that the plan of an episcopate as proposed 
by him, being without royal consent, can have no validity (Ibid. 137-140). 

3 Ibid. 192-194. 

4 Ibid. 195-196. What Chandler says on this head, together with 
Chauncy's answer, is quoted by Foote, Annals of King's Chapel, ii. 276- 
777. 



SUMMARY OF CHAUNCYS OBJECTIONS. 175 

in the mother church. (3) The project is on its face doomed 
to failure, for there are no such bishops known to the Church 
of England as Chandler describes; his proposed bishop is to 
have no authority at all as an officer of state, whereas a Church 
of England bishop could not exist divorced from the state ; 1 
hence any such plan could not but be rejected by the king and 
Parliament. (4) The plan would meet with no support from 
the Independents, who, since they seek no establishment for 
themselves, would not feel justified in seeking it for others. 
(5) Since, according to his reasoning, the proposed episcopate 
would be of no practical value, even to the Church of England 
itself, the money required for the support of bishops might 
better be applied to missionary work. 2 How far these argu- 
ments are cogent must be left to each reader to determine for 
himself. 

The rest of Chauncy's objections are professedly a reaffirma- 
tion and confirmation of those of Mayhew. 3 Summed up in a 
single phrase, they are what had been, was, and ever would be, 
the kernel of the whole opposing argument, namely, that 
bishops once settled would be apt to extend their powers. 
Chauncy, however, goes a bit farther than his predecessor in 
accusing the advocates for bishops of a wilful suppression of 
facts. His opinion is that "they have much more in design 
than they have been pleased to openly declare. . . . We are as 
fully persuaded," he adds, "as if they had openly said it, that 
they have in view nothing short of a complete Church Hie- 
rarchy, after the pattern of that at home, with like officers, in 
all their various degrees of dignity, with a like large revenue 
for their grand support, and with the allowance of no other 
privilege to dissenters but that of a bare toleration." 4 It has 
been shown that the first part of his statement had some basis 

1 " Did Bishops of the Church of England," he says, " no more depend on 
the State, and no more derive their authority from it, than our ministers do, 
the Episcopal Churches here might as well be supplied with Bishops as our's 
are with Pastors" {Appeal Answered, 151). 

2 Ibid. 141-157. 

3 After citing Mayhew at length, he states that he regards the objections 
advanced by him as reasonable {Ibid. 178). 

4 Ibid. 201-202. 



176 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

in fact. The second part, although possibly an exaggeration, 
is interesting as a fairly typical expression of the fear prevailing 
not only in New England, but elsewhere, 1 and as an illustration 
of the guiding principle in the action of a large number of 
earnest and serious-thinking men. 

Chandler's defence was published in the following year. 2 
On the title-page he prints the following quotation from A 
Letter to the Author of the Confessional: 2, "There are some 
spirits in the world who, unless they are in actual Possession 
of Despotism themselves, are daily haunted with the Appre- 
hension of being subject to it in others, and who seem to speak 
and act under the strange Persuasion that every Thing short 
of Persecution against what they dislike must terminate in the 
Persecution of themselves." These words sum up the concep- 
tion which Chandler and those of his party had of the attitude 
of the Independent bodies toward forms of religion other than 
their own. Although, like all generalities, it is subject to some 
qualification, it is a fairly accurate, though somewhat harsh, 
representation of the actual state of things; for even yet the 
idea of toleration as such was only slowly beginning to make 
itself felt in the colonies and in Christendom. 

While lamenting the virulent and unfair way in which his 
proposition has been received, and his arguments — which he 
intended to be serious — have been ridiculed in the public 
prints of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, Chandler is 
still full of a naive optimism, for, in spite of the opposition 
which his publication has called forth, he sees no evidence of 
any objection to the settlement of bishops, provided they be 
not invested with temporal powers, or, as Chauncy chose to 
put it, "under a state establishment." 4 

Among his numerous opponents he singles out Chauncy for 
his chief attention, and passes over as unworthy an answer two 

1 See, for example, a favorable review of the Appeal Answered, by " A 
Quaker," in the London Chronicle, June 14, 1768. 

2 The Appeal Defended : or, The Proposed American Episcopate Vindicated, 
etc. (New York, 1769). 

8 By Dr. Ridley and Thomas Seeker, published at London in 1768. 
4 Appeal Defended, Introduction, 4, 9. 



CHANDLER'S "APPEAL DEFENDED:" 177 

pamphlets written by " An Antiepiscopalian" and by " A 
Presbyter in Old England." 1 

In replying to Chauncy, he goes over the ground already 
covered in the Appeal. His opponents, he says, have more than 
once asserted that the taxation of the colonies and the proposal 
to send bishops to America are parts of one general scheme, 
the former menacing the political, the latter the religious liber- 
ties of the country ; but he denies that there is any ground for 
this supposition. So far as the definite purpose of the English 
government came into the question, he was perfectly right, for 
there is no evidence whatever that the two things were con- 
nected in its thought, and he was equally successful in showing 
that his opponents were both uncharitable and unconvincing in 
their attempts to make light of the disadvantages under which 
the Episcopalians suffered in being forced to get on without 
bishops. Where he failed was in his efforts to show that 
the settlement desired would be, in its logical consequences, 
no menace to the religious and political independence of the 
country. 

So much for the general trend of Chandler's argument ; now 
let us consider a few of the specific questions which he handles. 
In answer to Chauncy's suggestion, that commissaries might be 
sufficient for purposes of church government, he points out that 
"Reason and Experience teach the contrary." 2 In seeking to 

1 Of these, the latter is the more important. The title is, A Stipplement 
to a Letter to a Friend, containing an Answer to the Plea of T. B. Chandler 
for American Bishops, wherein his Reasonings are shown to be Fallacious 
and his Claims Indefensible. The argument of the " Presbyter " contains 
little more than a restatement of the opinions to be found in any of the 
better-known publications. The points on which he lays most stress are 
the following : that, if bishops are to exercise discipline over none but the 
laity, the need of them is very much diminished (p. 63) ; that the time 
for introducing them is inopportune ; that, since the amount of money already 
in the hands of the Society for their settlement and maintenance (some 
^4700) is obviously inadequate, the burden of the expense would probably 
fall upon the colonists ; that the bishops once in position would gradually 
usurp power. He sees a particularly dangerous tendency in Chandler's state- 
ment that "Episcopacy can never thrive in a Republican government, nor 
Republican principles in an Episcopal Church" (p. 78). 

2 Appeal Defended, 117. 



178 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

show that bishops would be able to do what the commissaries 
had proved themselves unequal to do, he is forced to admit 
that there might be need of spiritual courts for the trial of the 
Episcopal clergy only. 1 But these courts had already existed 
under the commissarial regime, and "reason and experience" 
had shown that they too were not practicable without some 
coercive power to back their decrees. However, if that power 
had been added, even for necessity's sake, the episcopal form 
of government thus created would hardly have been that pro- 
fessedly advocated by Chandler. 

Chandler next proceeds to consider the five objections urged 
by Chauncy ; 2 and, considering the fact that the burden of 
proof lies with him, he holds his own in this part of the argu- 
ment very well. 3 The rest of his refutation is rather weak, or 
at least unsatisfactory. He endeavors to meet his opponent's 
objections to what he had said about the possibility of taxation, 
and a future augmentation of episcopal powers, with the lame 
plea that he had considered these questions only as possible 
extreme suppositions for the sake of illustration. 4 Nevertheless, 
they were, after all has been said, extremely unfortunate admis- 
sions ; and it would be hardly too much to assume that they had 
the effect of counteracting whatever favorable effect his book 
might otherwise have had on the hostile or the indifferent. His 
challenge to his opponents to produce evidence that the motives 
of the advocates for bishops are not what they appear on the 
surface, 5 has a touch of insincerity, after what he has been 
shown to have said on this matter in his letter to Bishop Terrick. 
The same may be said of his assumption that the scheme would 
obtain the assistance of the government if desired ; for he must 
have known that certain scruples — the dissenting interest, com- 
bined with several other considerations — had always been strong 
enough to defeat any support from that quarter. 

His conclusion may be summed up somewhat as follows : 
Since an American episcopate is greatly desired, the objections 
to it have been foreseen and regarded in drawing up the plan 
on which it is to be settled. In accordance with this plan, the 

1 Appeal Defended, 118. 2 See above, p. 174. 

3 Appeal Defended, 206-207. 4 Ibid. 248-253. 5 Ibid. 258-260. 



CHAUNCY'S "REPLY" TO THE "APPEAL DEFENDED:" 179 

proposed bishops are to be supported only by private dona- 
tions, and to have no jurisdiction over any but their own clergy. 
To save themselves from being outflanked by these conces- 
sions, the irreconcilable opponents to the plan have been 
forced to bring up new objections, which may be classed under 
two heads: first, that the episcopate in the modified form 
advocated would not be desired by the Episcopalians them- 
selves ; and secondly, that such a system, harmless in the 
beginning, would tend to grow oppressive. In regard to the 
first point, he asserts that the publications of the Society for 
Propagating the Gospel, as well as the vouchers of its leading 
members, prove just the contrary. As to the second point, he 
maintains that there is not only no intention, but also no proba- 
bility, of such an exigency. As no valid objection stands in the 
way, the Church of England demands the settlement of bishops 
in the colonies as an indisputable right, grounded both on the 
sacred claims of toleration and on the freedom due under the 
English constitution. 1 

How much effect these arguments of Chandler had on his 
opponents is shown by the wording of the title of Chauncy's 
answer (1770), which announced itself to be A Reply to Dr. 
Chandler 's " Appeal Defended" : wherein his Mistakes are recti- 
fied, his false Arguing refuted, and the Objections against the 
planned American Episcopate shown to remain in full Force not- 
withstanding all he has offered to retider them invalid? Over a 
third of the pamphlet is devoted to a discussion of the origin 
and nature of the episcopal office. Since that matter does not 

1 Appeal Defended, 264-268. 

2 The quotation from Baxter's Treatise of Episcopacy, which he takes as 
a motto for his title-page, is very amusing : " When such as our Diocesans 
sprang up, the Church was presently broke into pieces, and by odious Conten- 
tions and Divisions became a Scandal and Scorn to Unbelievers. To read 
but the Acts of Councils, and the History of the Church, and there find the 
horrid Contentions of Prelates against each other; the Parties which they 
made, their running up and down the World to Princes, and Rulers, and 
Synods, to bear down one another; it will do as much to grieve and amaze 
the Soul of a sober Christian, as almost any History in the world he can 
peruse. 1 ' It should be remarked that, on the score of courtesy, Chandler was 
throughout the controversy a shining contrast to his opponents. 



180 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

concern us here, we may proceed at once to examine what the 
author has to say in particular on the subject of the introduction 
of bishops into America. 

As in his previous publication, he takes up the question of 
ordination, and remarks that this purely spiritual office can be 
N satisfactorily performed by the two bishops already in America, 
the Roman Catholic bishop in the North and the Moravian 
bishop in the South. 1 Like all his predecessors and associates, 
Chauncy fails to do justice to the fair claims of his opponents 
in matters of purely spiritual concern : all that he says on this 
head is either trivial or unsatisfactory. 

To proceed to another step in his argument ; he says that the 
plans hitherto proposed for an American episcopate have been 
formulated by the clergy with no authority from their laity and 
no official sanction from the king of England ; 2 hence any plan 
established by the " proper authority " would very probably 
differ from those of Seeker, Butler, and others, whatever the 
pro-episcopal agitators may "intend or pretend." Moreover, 
the fact that, when Dr. Stiles made a formal application to the 
clerk of the New York convention for copies of its petitions, 
especially of those to the king, his request was denied, furnishes 
good ground for supposing that the arguments put forth in the 
public prints were not the same as those used in the petitions. 
Another indication of the dubiousness of the motives of those 
advocating the settlement of bishops he finds in the fact that the 
applications have come from the colonies in which the Church of 
England is weakest, namely, the seven colonies north of Virginia 
and Maryland. This shows that the main point aimed at is to 
episcopize the colonies. 3 

In a recapitulation of the arguments contained in his five 
specific points against the introduction of bishops, he says little 
that is new. 4 He does, however, succeed in presenting in 
clearer form the inconsistency of settling bishops on the plan 
advocated by Chandler, contending that such bishops as the 
latter proposes could not be sent consistently with the constitu- 
tion of the Church of England. This consideration he regards 

1 Reply to "Appeal Defended? 91-93. 

2 Ibid. 110-116. 3 fbid. 152-153. 4 Ibid. 121-153. 



THE CASE OF THE NEW YORK SYNOD. 181 

as the chief obstacle to their introduction ; for, were it not for 
the fact that they are by the nature of their office inextricably 
bound up with the state and its functions, they could without 
more ado be settled in American dioceses as simply as the 
independent pastors are settled over the parishes. 

Chauncy devotes the remainder of his argument to showing, 
mainly from antecedent probability, the dangers inevitably con- 
sequent upon an Episcopal establishment. In support of his 
case, he cites the well-known example of the New York synod. 
The Presbyterians of New York had made several attempts to 
obtain a charter of incorporation for their body, and to that end 
had applied successively to Colonel Schuyler in 1 721, to Gov- 
ernor Burnet in 1734, and to Lieutenant Governor Delancey in 
1759; but, in spite of the fact that on August 20, 1724, Coun- 
sellor West had given it as his opinion that such a request could 
be legally granted, the cause had made no progress. In March, 
1767, a fourth petition was hazarded, this time to the king. 
After being considered in the Privy Council, it was referred to 
the Board of Trade, before which the Bishop of London 
appeared twice and spoke against it. Owing probably to his 
efforts, the report made to the council was unfavorable, and in 
consequence the king rejected the petition. 1 From the evidence 
that we have it is hard to say whether the bishop's action was 
based on the legal ground alleged, namely, that it would have 
been a breach of the Coronation Oath for the king to grant the 
petition, or whether he proceeded on the principle that, as 
diocesan of the colonies and as a leading prelate of the Church 
of England, he must perforce oppose anything that would tend 
to advance the interests of any other form of worship than that 
which he represented. Whatever the truth of the matter may 
have been, Chauncy draws the inference that Bishop Terrick's 
action was dictated by his own intolerance and the pressure 
of the New York Episcopalians. 2 He argues that this instance 
goes to show what may be expected from bishops, if once they 
are settled in the colonies. 

He adduces as collateral evidence the connection between the 
episcopal question and the recent course of political events, a 
1 Reply to " Appeal Defended" Appendix, i.-vi. 2 Ibid. ix. 



182 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

point already touched upon in his previous pamphlet. " If 
Bishops," he quotes approvingly from Mayhew, " were speedily 
to be sent to America, it seems not wholly improbable from 
what we hear of the unusual tenor of some late parliamentary 
acts and bills, for raising money on the poor colonies without 
their consent, that provision might be made for the support of 
these Bishops, if not of all the church clergy also, in the 
same way." x This idea, like all the other attempts of Chauncy 
to join the two issues, was strenuously resisted by Chandler. 
Whether it was a shrewd device of the leaders among the 
Independent clergy to frustrate the plan by coupling it with 
one which the colonists would fight to the last ditch, or whether 
they sincerely believed the two matters to be really connected, 
is a question difficult to decide. It will be unnecessary to 
follow the argument of the Reply to the " Appeal Defended" 
any farther, for its central position is sufficiently clear, that 
there could be no colonial episcopate except upon the basis of 
a state establishment, and this would involve tendencies and 
consequences dangerous to the integrity of the civil and religious 
institutions of the colonists. 

Chandler, in his Appeal Farther Defended, which appeared in 
answer to the Reply in 1771, probes the heart of the question 
at issue and seeks to grapple with this main point. Chauncy 
has conceded that those of his party do not wish to oppose the 
Episcopalians in the exercise of their religion, even under bish- 
ops, provided the latter be purely spiritual shepherds. 2 By this 
concession, Chandler maintains, his opponents have given up 
the point in dispute. On closer examination, however, a non- 
partisan eye would discover that this concession was fully as 
hollow as that made by Mayhew at a previous stage of the con- 
troversy. Chandler's assumption cheerfully presupposes that 
he and his colleagues have explained away all that would tend 

1 Reply to " Appeal Defended;" 166. 

2 Chandler {Appeal Farther Defended, 10) quotes the passage in which 
Chauncy has best summed up this matter: "It is not simply the exercise of 
any of their religious principles that would give the least uneasiness, nor yet 
the exercise of them under as many purely spiritual Bishops as they could 
wish to have; but their having Bishops under a State-establishment" 
(Chauncy, Appeal Answered, 189). 



CHANDLER'S "APPEAL FARTHER DEFENDED:" 183 

to indicate that the form of episcopate introduced would neither 
be under the Church of England establishment nor bring in its 
train the apprehended political effects. As a matter of fact, 
however, neither he nor any of his party had ever succeeded in 
proving the harmlessness of the design to the satisfaction of its 
critics ; hence his victory was not so assured as he would have 
led his readers to think. 

As in the Appeal and the Appeal Defended, he is, to be sure, 
full of assurances : the proposed bishops are to have " ' no 
Authority, but such as is derived altogether from the Church.' 
. . . The Government is not expected or desired to give them 
any Support or peculiar Protection ; and consequently they are 
not to be on the Footing of a State Establishment." 1 But 
these were merely assurances, which the colonists, considering 
the dangerous times in which they were living, neither could nor 
would accept without some further guarantee. On one point 
in this connection, however, Chandler succeeded in confuting 
Chauncy, and in a negative way, at least, added strength to 
his own assurances : he printed in his book the petitions for 
American bishops sent, October 2, 1765, by the convention held 
at Perth Amboy, New Jersey, to the king and the Archbishop 
of Canterbury, and they proved to contain nothing new or 
secret. 2 

He devotes some space to a consideration and refutation of 
the suggestion that the candidates for orders in the Church of 
England can very well be consecrated by the bishops already 
in America. To this plan he enumerates five main objections : 
that the Episcopalians are neither Moravians nor Papists, and 
therefore would not like to have their spiritual offices performed 
by members of those bodies ; that such a procedure would offend 
the temporal and spiritual authorities of the Church of England ; 
that it would be schismatical according to the canons of the 
church ; 3 that there are only two bishops in the colonies, whereas 

1 Appeal Farther Defended, 12. 

2 Ibid. 21-2 j. 

3 "We look upon Schism in the Church, 1 ' says Chandler, "to have much of 
the same Nature with Rebellion in the State ; and the Guilt of both is so fla- 
grant in our Opinion, that we constantly pray in our Litany to be preserved 



1 84 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

the Episcopalians prefer to follow the canonical custom of hav- 
ing three bishops for the imposition of hands ; x that since the 
home government would undoubtedly be unwilling to lend its 
consent to the plan, the Roman Catholic bishop of Canada and 
the Moravian bishop of Pennsylvania would very probably 
refuse to do anything in the matter for fear of offending the 
authority which tolerated them. In this line of reasoning we 
see Chandler at his best : his tone is moderate, and his argu- 
ments logical and convincing. Surely, from the spiritual point 
of view, the members of the Church of England in America 
had the strongest of cases ; and, had no other considerations 
entered into the question, nothing but the most narrow bigotry 
and the most unjustifiable intolerance could have induced any 
one to resist their entreaties. 

Chandler, however, overlooked these " other considerations." 
In the teeth of the most contrary evidence he seeks to show 
that the tendency toward a favorable consideration of the plan 
is much more marked than formerly. " There were many 
Members of the Church," he says, "that were, upon the 
whole, averse to an Episcopate in this country, imagining it 
would either expose them to considerable Expence for its 
Support, or put them to some other Inconveniences. 2 But 

from it — 'from all false Doctrine, Heresy, and Schism," 1 as well as < from all 
Sedition, privy Conspiracy, and Rebellion.'' Were the British Colonies inde- 
pendent of their Parent-Kingdom, the Episcopalians in this Country would be 
a Society independent of the national Church ; and in that Case they might 
seek for an Episcopate from any Part of the Globe, from which they could 
expect most easily to obtain it. But such an Independency they do not affect 
— they wish not to see; they desire no more than the common Rights of 
British Subjects, and the common Privileges of their Fellow-Christians ; or, in 
other Words, such a Toleration as the Government allows to the Dissenters 
from its own religious Establishment" (Appeal Farther Defended, 113-114). 
Although this passage plainly betrays the author's loyalist sympathies, it con- 
tains nothing open to disparaging criticism. 

1 This of course applies to consecration of bishops. According to the 
canon law only one bishop was needed to confer ordination. 

2 He says in another place that before the publication of the Appeal men 
had had two objections to a native episcopate, namely, the payment of tithes 
and the power of spiritual courts (Appeal Farther Defended, 235). It has been 
shown that certain assertions in Chandler's publication had tended rather to 
confirm than to remove these apprehensions. 



CHANDLER'S "APPEAL FARTHER DEFENDED." 185 

when they came to see that every Thing of this Kind had 
been carefully guarded against, and that from its Design 
and Tendency it would be mild and beneficial in its Opera- 
tion, which appeared as soon as it was explained to them, 
their Aversion immediately ceased, and from that Time they 
have generally viewed it in the same Light with that wherein 
it is seen by the Clergy." 1 This statement, even as regarded 
the members of his own communion, was hardly in accordance 
with the facts of the case ; for, as later events showed, a con- 
siderable body of Episcopalians in Virginia came out squarely 
against the scheme of superseding the authority of the Bishop 
of London by that of native bishops, and in some of the other 
colonies they showed hardly any enthusiasm, to say the least. 2 
In this connection Chandler points out a consideration or two 
of considerable interest; namely, that the Quakers of Penn- 
sylvania and New Jersey show no aversion to the proposed 
American episcopate, 3 and furthermore that the Baptists stand 
on the side of the Episcopalians against the enemies of both, 
the Congregationalists and Presbyterians. 4 Among the evi- 
dences cited as proof of the latter assertion is the following 
extract from an author writing in favor of the Baptists : " The 
Fraternity," says this writer, alluding to that recently formed 
between the Presbyterians and Congregationalists, " last Year 
have sent Letters to Baptist Ministers in New England, request- 
ing their Aid against the Church of England. But truly it is 
the Interest of the Baptists that the Church of England should 
multiply in Massachusetts and Connecticut, so far as to form 

1 Appeal Farther Defended, 144. 

2 See below, ch. x. 

8 Appeal Farther Defended, 145. 

4 A later passage by Chandler states facts hard to reconcile with the opti- 
mism of these utterances. Referring to the effect of the Appeal, he says : 
" What shortly after ensued on the Occasion, what inflammatory periodical, 
Papers, and Pamphlets from different Quarters, were issued in Answer to it, is 
well known. An Alarm was sounded throughout the Colonies, that a general 
Invasion of their religious Liberty was projected, — the Minds of the Populace 
were inflamed by Arts that were wicked and infamous, — the Church of Eng- 
land, the whole Order of Bishops, and the Clergy of our Convention were 
shamefully abused in the Common News-Papers " (/bid. 234) . 



1 86 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

a Ballance of ecclesiastical Power there, as in other Colonies. 
And as for Bishops, they are welcome there ; their coming 
thither is an Object worthy of Petitions ; we cannot be worse 
off ; we may be better ; they are Gentlemen at least, and have 
some Generosity for vanquished Enemies. But the New-Eng- 
land People (of a certain Denomination) are supercilious in 
Power and mean in Conquest. I will venture to say that all 
the Bishops in Old England have not done the Baptists there 
so much Despite for 80 Years past as the Presbyterians 
have done this Year to the Baptists of New-England." 1 Yet, 
while it was a notorious fact that the Presbyterians and Congre- 
gationalists, particularly in New England, where they were in 
power, had been strenuously unrelenting against those who 
professed beliefs contrary to their own, and while this fact 
might deprive them of some support in their efforts to combat 
the introduction of bishops, this quotation is significant rather 
as an indication of hatred to the Orthodox Church of New 
England than as an evidence of friendship to the cause of an 
American episcopate. Moreover, although a New England 
Baptist, in a fit of rebellion against measures of oppression 
directed against him in that particular province, might, as a 
means of securing an ally, have been induced to write such lines 
as the above, it is doubtful how far the opinions which he 
expressed concerning the Church of England were general. 
Certainly Semple's History of the Baptists, which details the 
rigors which the sect suffered under the establishment, has little 
good to say about the ecclesiastical rule of the Episcopal Church. 
The Appeal Farther Defended was the last contribution to 
what may be specifically termed the " Chandler-Chauncy con- 
troversy." Meantime, however, the episcopal question had 
been reopened in England, leading to a discussion which, from 
the fact that Chandler took part in it, may be considered in 
this connection. The occasion for this new outbreak was the 
publication, in 1 769, of a letter by Archbishop Seeker in answer 
to Walpole's letter of May 29, 1750. 2 Although written Janu- 

1 Appeal Farther Defended, 145-146, citing Pennsylvania Chronicle, 
November 26, 1770. 

2 See above, p. 119. 



PUBLICATION OF SEC KEFS LETTER TO W A LP OLE. 187 

ary 9, 1750-51, its contents, in deference to an expressed wish 
of the late archbishop, had not been made public until after his 
death. 1 Seeker's argument, having been composed so early in 
the discussion, will naturally strike one who has followed the 
controversy through its various stages as stale and unprofitable 
both in form and in matter. It is necessary, however, even at 
the risk of tediousness, to outline its main points, in order to 
appreciate the later publications attacking and defending it. 

The writer's purpose is to consider whether the proposition 
to send two or three bishops to America, to perform the episco- 
pal offices and to exercise such jurisdiction as has been formerly, 
or may be in future, exercised by the Bishop of London's com- 
missaries, would be reasonable and practicable ; and whether, 
as Walpole seems to apprehend, the power acquired by such 
bishops, once established, would, in the nature of things, be 
stretched to the extent of introducing exorbitant ecclesiastico- 
political innovations, thereby causing uneasiness both in England 
and in the colonies. 2 

Of the " reasonableness of the proposal abstractedly consid- 
ered " Seeker thinks there can be no doubt. Walpole himself, 
he says, admits that much, and there has been scarcely a bishop 
of the Church of England from the revolution to this day who 
has not desired such an establishment. Archbishop Tennison, 
for example, who was certainly no high churchman, left a pro- 
vision in his will for the advancement of the cause. It may 
indeed be argued, he continued, that bishops are naturally par- 
tial to the plan ; but to such objectors he points out that the 
Society for Propagating the Gospel, consisting, as it does, partly 
of inferior clergy and partly of laymen, can hardly be suspected 
of designing to advance episcopal authority for its own sake, and 
yet this body, almost from its incorporation, has been eager for 
the plan. 3 Any fair-minded man, he goes on, must see that for 
the necessary purposes of ordination, confirmation, and discipline, 

1 See the advertisement to the published letter. 

2 Seeker, Works, vi. 492. 

3 Ibid. 496-497. But it has been seen (above, p. 101) that the Society, after 
its defeat in 17 14, had practically ceased to agitate the question until Seeker 
himself revived it by his sermon in 1740. 



1 88 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

bishops are indispensable to the very existence of the Church of 
England in the colonies. 1 

Having shown that the demand for American bishops is both 
just and reasonable, Seeker next faces the objection that such 
an establishment may be attended with a dangerous increase of 
the church's power in the colonies. He sees no likelihood or 
possibility of such an event. The commissaries have neither 
attempted nor been able to extend their authority beyond its 
original limits, and " Bishops will be still more narrowly watched 
by the Governors, by other Sects, by the Laity, and even the 
Clergy of their own Communion." In other words, even if the 
bishops should seek to extend their authority, which is unlikely, 
checks exist adequate to defeat any such attempt. As a matter 
of fact, however, there is nothing in the plan to excite any 
apprehension either at home or abroad. There neither is nor 
ever has been any design to tax the colonists or burden the 
crown for the support of the bishops to be settled under it. 
Indeed, an earlier attempt to establish a bishopric in Virginia 
failed, for the very reason that the endowment was to be out of 
the customs. 2 The present plan has nothing of the character of 
a state establishment; it need not go to Parliament, since the 
law permits the ordination of suffragan bishops solely with the 
royal approbation. The Bishop of London can send the suffra- 
gans thus created as his commissaries, but with power to ordain, 
confirm, and exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 3 

1 It had been argued that no petitions had been received from the laity or 
from the clergy in certain quarters, a fact which showed that practically all the 
former, and at least a portion of the latter, were very cool toward the scheme. 
But, according to Seeker, the lack of petitions, far from indicating such a state 
of things, might be explained on quite other grounds ; namely, by the general 
neglect of mankind for spiritual concerns, by the fact that the clergy where 
the church was established enjoyed more liberty and power without the epis- 
copal oversight, and by a disposition to leave the matter in the hands of the 
Bishop of London and the Society. 

2 Seeker refers to the occasion when the Reverend Alexander Murray was 
to be sent, and cites as his authority some papers of Bishop Gibson. It has 
been seen (above, p. 90) that another equally possible reason was assigned 
for the failure of this plan. 

3 Compare with the plan of Bishop Compton in 1707 (above, pp. 97-98, and 
below, Appendix A, No. iii.). 



BLACKBURNE'S "CRITICAL COMMENTARY:' 1 189 

Finally, not only is the demand for such an establishment 
reasonable, not only is it in its aims and motives independent of 
any political design, and therefore unlikely to be opposed by the 
majority of the colonists, but it is advisable as a matter of public 
policy, since the refusal of the request will hurt the government 
more in the eyes of the Church of England than the amount of 
favor which the policy will secure from the dissenters will bene- 
fit. The time at which these words were written must be borne 
in mind, for, as has been seen, later events prove Walpole to 
have been far more correct than Seeker in his forecast concern- 
ing the attitude of public opinion on the question at issue. 

Such is an outline of the main arguments of Seeker's letter. 
The year after its publication Francis Blackburne, archdeacon 
of Cleveland, replied with A Critical Commentary. He begins by 
hazarding a conjecture that Walpole did not begin the discus- 
sion, since the ministers of state were not then anxious to offend 
the colonists. The cause of the trouble should, he thinks, be 
laid rather to the Bishop of London, who, as diocesan of the 
colonial members of the Church of England, would naturally 
seek by all means in his power to raise their condition. 1 But 
whoever was to blame for starting the agitation for an American 
episcopate, Blackburne thinks that all must lament the publica- 
tion of Seeker's letter at the present juncture, when the colonists 
ought not to be unnecessarily irritated. 2 

The Critical Commentary need not here be considered in 
detail. It is made up partly of a rebuttal of the arguments 
advanced in Seeker's letter, partly of expressions of apprehen- 
sion as to the probable outcome of an episcopal establishment, 
and partly of charges against the sincerity of its advocates. 
The writer's remarks under the last two heads are characteristic. 
He regards the fact that the bishops are to be appointed purely 
on the approval of the crown as far from quieting ; for such an 
arrangement would give the crown all the more chance to en- 
large its powers, should it find them insufficient for its political 
purposes. 3 Moreover, he refuses to trust Seeker's assurances as 
to the limitation of the authority of the bishops to be sent. For 
his own part, he regards the whole scheme as an outcome of the 
1 Critical Continent ary, 6. 2 Ibid. 8. 8 Ibid. 28. 



190 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

machinations of the Society for Propagating the Gospel, for it 
is that body which has instructed its missionaries to stir up the 
colonists to petition for bishops : Apthorp, Chandler, and the 
others were only instruments in its hands ; x and indeed, so 
ardent and powerful an advocate as Bishop Sherlock, to whom 
the matter owes much of the attention which it has attracted in 
recent years, proceeded not so much on his own initiative as at 
the incitement of the Society. 2 

Blackburne pointed out, more clearly than any one else had 
done, the motives which influenced the dissenters in England to 
take the side of their colonial brethren. " They knew," he said, 
" the hardship of these legal disabilities under which they them- 
selves lay at home. They had good reason to believe that the 
influence of the established Hierarchy contributed to continue 
this grievance." Their brethren in America were as yet free 
from the incubus of episcopacy, and their safety lay in re- 
maining so. " If Bishops were let in among them, and particu- 
larly under the notion of presiding in established Episcopal 
Churches, there was the highest probability they would take 
their precedents of Government and Discipline from the Estab- 
lishment in the Mother Country, and would probably never be 
at rest " till they had themselves secured an establishment based 
on an exclusive test. English dissenters, then, knowing that 
their brethren across the water were of their mind, had deter- 
mined to cooperate with them. 3 

Chandler, who had some time ago said the last word in the 
disputation with Chauncy, now entered the lists against this new 
opponent of his cause. In 1774 he published a reply to Black- 
burne under the title of A Free Examination of the Critical 
Commentary. He begins by citing some extracts from recent 
sermons before the Society for Propagating the Gospel, as 

1 Critical Commentary, 65 . 

2 He informs us that in May, 1749, Bishop Sherlock, while in conversation 
with Mr. Hooper, one of the council of Barbadoes, said, " It is not I that 
send Bishops to America, it is the Society for Propagating the Gospel in 
foreign Parts, who are the movers of this matter " (J bid. note) . One would 
like the authority for this statement. 

3 Critical Commentary, 82-83. Cf. Mellen Chamberlain, John Adams, 32, 
with note, citing Blackburne. 



CHANDLERS "FREE EXAMINATION." 191 

evidence of the purity of motive of responsible persons who 
desire an American episcopate. 1 In almost every annual ser- 
mon since the outbreak of the Mayhew controversy, the preacher 
before the Society had made some allusion to the episcopal 
question which was agitating the colonial mind. Their general 
line of reasoning is already familiar to us, but it may be well to 
give a word to each of the more important utterances. Dr. 
Terrick, Bishop of London, pointed out the need of an establish- 
ment for promoting "order and discipline," and rejected the 
imputation of an intention to infringe on the religious liberties 
of other denominations. 2 Dr. Ewer, Bishop of Llandoff, con- 
fined himself to a discussion of the need of Episcopal clergymen 
in America, the lack of whom with its attendant disadvantages 
he attributed to the want of bishops. 3 Dr. Green, Bishop of 
Lincoln, merely emphasized what others had laid stress on ; 
namely, the injustice of that condition of things which made the 
Church of England the only church in America to which tolera- 
tion for its complete system was not allowed. 4 Dr. Newton, 
Bishop of Bristol, pointed out that " the greatest Want of all is 
that of an American Bishop for the Purposes of Confirmation, 
Ordination, Visitation of the Clergy, and other ecclesiastical 
Offices, without the least Share of civil Power or Jurisdiction 
whatever." He too exclaimed at the injustice of "depriving," 
as he termed it, one-third of the ecclesiastical population of their 
just rights. 5 Dr. Keppel, Bishop of Exeter, desired "not to 
ingros Authority, or give a Check to Liberty of any Sort," 
but simply hoped "for equal Indulgence with others." 6 Dr. 
Lowth, Bishop of Oxford, advocated the appointment of " one 
or more resident Bishops " solely as a remedy for the needs of 
the church in the colonies. 7 Dr. Moss, Bishop of St. David's, 
went a bit farther than his predecessors in hazarding the state- 
ment that the government must have had some motives for 

1 Free Examination, Introduction, v.-xii. 

2 Ibid, v., citing the Society's Abstract, 1764, p. 34. 

3 Ibid, vi., citing Abstract, 1767, p. 22. 

4 Ibid, vii., citing Abstract, 1768, p. 22. 
6 Ibid, viii., citing Abstract, 1769, p. 26. 

6 Ibid, ix., citing Abstract, 1770, p. 11. 

7 Ibid, x., citing Abstract, 1771, p. 14. 



192 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

" withholding this Indulgence [of an American Episcopate] " ; 
but whether these motives arose from negligence or from some 
other cause, he would not venture to say. 1 This attempt to 
demonstrate, from the professions of the leaders of the church, 
that political interests played no part in their endeavors to 
secure bishops for America is the most important part of 
Chandler's pamphlet. The rest of it goes over old ground. 

The anti-episcopal writers for the London Chronicle, a news- 
paper concerning which more will be said later, attacked 
Seeker's Letter, with the asperity with which they were ac- 
customed to treat anything coming from the pens of the ad- 
vocates or the defenders of the American episcopal scheme. 
One contributor says that the writing of the archbishop indi- 
cates an attempt of the church power to claim an alliance with 
the state, under the cover of seeming to work for the propa- 
gation of the gospel ; and that such an alliance, under which 
English nonconformists have suffered in times past, fills the 
present generation with dread and foreboding. 2 Another con- 
tributor asserts that it has been proved to a demonstration by 
Hobart, Mayhew, and Chauncy, in their respective controversies 
with the Society, that the main purpose of the several leaders of 
that body, and especially of the late Archbishop Seeker, has been 
and is, not so much to spread the gospel among the heathen, 
as to episcopize the colonists, to convert Presbyterians and 
Congregationalists, to " persuade Christians to become Chris- 
tians," a proceeding totally inconsistent with the Society's 
charter and the expectations of the public, its contributors. 
It is all a farce, he maintains, to pretend that they want a 
bishop in America for the sake of the few souls of the Epis- 
copal persuasion there, to convey to them "the means of 
sacramental grace," as the Bishop of Exeter expressed it in his 
recent sermon before the Society ; it is, rather, " to reduce the 
Sectaries, to extend the dominion of the Church, and to bring 
all to bow their knees to them, that the late primate and others 
have been so eager to carry their point." Otherwise, he says, 
"they might have been provided with a bishop, either from 

1 Free Examination, Introduction, xi., citing Abstract, 1772, p. 28. 

2 London Chronicle, March 22, 1770. 



REFERENCES TO THE OLD LAUD IAN PROJECT, 193 

among themselves or one privately sent hence. But nothing 
but a State Bishop, with lordly titles, unknown in New Testa- 
ment Code, will go down. And then they will boast, indeed, 
that the Church established in the Colonies, and of Conse- 
quence all the civil offices of the country belong to them alone, 
or to such as go through their turnpike." 

These statements are not only unreasonable, but in one re- 
spect they are a palpable misrepresentation of facts. Any one 
not blind with partisan frenzy would have seen and admitted 
that it was impossible for Episcopalians, under the system to 
which they professed adherence, to choose bishops from their 
own midst. As to accepting a bishop privately sent from Eng- 
land, provided he were properly consecrated, no churchman on 
either side of the water had advanced any objection ; on the 
contrary, more than one advocate for the American episcopate 
had suggested such an arrangement. This, indeed, was the 
gist of the project for bishops, more than once alluded to in 
these pages ; and the majority of the opponents of the plan, 
fearing the consequences which the step would involve, had ob- 
jected to even this. Such apprehensions may or may not have 
been well grounded; but certainly it was the opponents, and 
not the favorers, of bishops who had contended against a trial 
of the experiment. 

The same correspondent of the Chi'onicle alludes also to the 
old Laudian project, and sarcastically laments that the prelate 
who had the chief hand in driving the ancestors of the colo- 
nists into the deserts of America could not have lived to wit- 
ness the present efforts of his followers in continuation of his 
scheme, which was interrupted by the outbreak in Scotland. 
The archbishop's plan, he thinks, had it not "been strangled 
in its first conception," might have altered the whole course of 
English colonial history. 1 

1 " I apprehend," he says, " that if Laud had not had other work cut out for 
him, in consequence of pushing his beloved prelacy too vehemently upon 
the Scotch, but had pursued his plan in New England, he would soon have 
unpeopled that infant colony, and we should now have heard no disturbance 
from that quarter, which some people might have been pleased with. Though 
I own myself, I think it for our honour, that our fellow-citizens on the other 
side of the Atlantic make such a noble stand for their civil and religious liber- 



194 THE CHANDLER-CHAUNCY CONTROVERSY. 

Such endeavors as Archbishop Seeker's, writes another, " ad- 
minister fresh fuel to a flame too ready to break out, and too 
alarming not to give every well-wisher of his country very 
serious thoughts." The " passion and vehemence" with which 
the project has been espoused and advocated by many of the 
Church of England missionaries is, he says, " one great ingredi- 
ent in the jealousy entertained by the Colonists for some time 
of the designs of the Mother Country." For this reason he 
regards it as particularly unfortunate that the matter should be 
stirred up again, when councils of peace and reconciliation be- 
tween the mother country and her American children have 
become so necessary and desirable. 1 

Such was the controversy occasioned by the publication of 
Seeker's letter. It was but a ramification, or perhaps one might 
say an echo, of those stirring discussions which had gone before. 
From this time the near approach of the Revolution, bringing 
with it questions of more immediate and pressing interest, 
crowded the matter of the introduction of bishops into the 
background ; and yet, during a certain period in the struggle, 
the ecclesiastical question was as hotly agitated as any other 
then current. To appreciate the extent to which public opinion 
was stirred up over the episcopal issue, it will be necessary to 
turn now to a consideration of the virulent newspaper battle 
which raged during the years 1 768-1 769. 

ties, and New England may contribute to save Old England. . . . Our church- 
men have not taken warning by Laud's fate," he continues, "... for these 
last ten years they have pursued their episcopizing plan more vehemently than 
ever, and have also joined in the cry against the Americans if they have not 
taken the lead in it, and blacken'd and abus'd them in all their publications, 
and have perhaps contributed not a little to the virulence that some men show 
against them. But, avert it, Heaven ! that Heylyn's military forces should be 
adopted or continued to carry Episcopacy, or any other measure in our colo- 
nies. Amyntor Americanus" (Letter iii. to the London Chronicle, July 6, 
1770). 

^'Phormio," in the London Chronicle, September 8, 1770. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY, 1 1768-1769. 

Discussion on the subject of introducing American bishops 
first became general in the newspapers in 1768, and reached its 
height during the course of this and the following year. It was 
ushered in by two series of articles : one in the New York 
Gazette, under the signature of " The American Whig " ; the 
other in the Pennsylvania Journal, under the signature of " The 
Centinel" (or "Sentinel"). Though the several numbers of 
each series were evidently written by different hands, the chief 
contributors under these respective names seem to have been 
William Livingston and Francis Alison. The latter, vice-provost 
of the College of Philadelphia, was assisted by some of his Pres- 
byterian brethren, particularly John Dickinson, the celebrated 
author of The Farmer s Letters} The ostensible purpose of 
these earlier articles was to answer Chandler's Appeal to the 

1 Though various single sets of newspapers have been used, particularly a 
complete file of the London Chronicle, the main source has been a contempo- 
raneous reprint entitled A. Collection of Tracts from the late Newspapers, Q^c, 
containing particularly The American Whig, A Whip for the American 
Whig, with some other Pieces, on the Subject of the Residence of Protestant 
Bishops in the American Colonies, and in Answer to the Writers who opposed 
it, Qr'c. (2 vols., New York, 1 768-1 769; "printed by John Holt, at the Ex- 
change ") . This book is now extremely rare. The articles by the " American 
Whig " and the "Kick for the Whipper" originally appeared in Parker's New- 
York Gazette, those by the "Whip for the American Whig" in Gaine's 
New York Gazette, those by the " Centinel " and " Anti-Centinel " in the 
Pennsylvania Journal, those by the "Anatomist " in the Pennsylvania Gazette 
(founded by Benjamin Franklin). Other articles on the subject appeared in 
the New York Journal, the Pennsylvania Chronicle, the Boston Gazette, and 
the Connecticut Journal, the latter published in New Haven. Throughout the 
chapter the extracts, whether taken from the Collection or not, are ascribed 
to the newspapers in which they first appeared. 

1 Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 153 ff. Compare a 
letter from Chandler to the secretary of the Society, June 24, 1768, printed in 
S. A. Clark, History of St. John's Church, 135-138. 



196 THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY. 

Public, though it has been conjectured that the disappointment 
occasioned by the failure of the New York Presbyterians in 1767 
to obtain their charter of incorporation, a defeat which they 
attributed to the Bishop of London, may have had some influ- 
ence in the matter. 1 The " American Whig " was answered 
by " Timothy Tickle" in "A Whip for the American Whig," 
who was in turn called to account by " Sir Isaac Foot " in " A 
Kick for the Whipper." The chief opponent of the " Centinel" 
was Dr. William Smith, provost of the College of Philadelphia, 
who wrote a series of essays under the pseudonym of " The 
Anatomist." 

The " American Whig " made his first bow to the public 
March 14, 1768. He announced the appearance of Chandler's 
first book, and after a satirical characterization of its contents 
concluded as follows : " Considering the encroachments that 
have lately been made on our civil liberties, and that we can 
scarcely obtain redress against one injurious project but another 
is forming against us — considering the poverty and distress of 
the colonies by the restrictions on our trade, and how peculiarly 
necessary it is, in these times of common calamity, to be united 
amongst ourselves, one could scarcely have imagined that the 
most ambitious ecclesiastic should be so indifferent about the 
true interest of his native country as to sow, at this critical 
juncture, the seeds of universal discord; and besides the depri- 
vation of our civil liberties, lend his helping hand to involve us 
in ecclesiastical bondage into the bargain. Is this a time to 
think of episcopal palaces, of pontifical revenues, of spiritual 
courts, and all the pomp, grandeur, luxury, and regalia of an 
American Lambeth ? 'Tis true the pamphlet is specious, and 
appears to ask nothing but what is highly reasonable ; and 
could any man, above the capacity of an Ideot, really persuade 
himself, the Doctor and the Convention would content themselves 
with a Bishop, so limited and curtailed as he is pleased to repre- 
sent his future Lordship ; it were manifest injustice to deny 
them what in their opinion their eternal salvation so greatly 
depends upon. But it is not the primitive Christian Bishop 

1 Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 153. Cf. above, 
p. 181. 



NEW PHASES OF THE EPISCOPAL CONTROVERSY. 197 

they want. It is the modem, splendid, opulent, court favoured, 
law-dignified, superb, magnificent, powerful prelate, on which their 
hearts are so intent. And that such a Bishop would be one of 
the worst commodities that can possibly be imported into a new 
country, and must inevitably prove absolute desolation and ruin 
to this, I shall abundantly evince in the course of these specu- 
lations." 1 

This utterance marks a new development in the discussion. 
Hitherto, though the apprehension of an ecclesiastico-political 
tyranny had been the essential underlying cause of the opposi- 
tion to bishops, particularly in New England, the issue had 
been obscured by a network of theological polemics. During 
the period from Hobart to Chauncy, however, the political 
element was steadily pushing its way to the front, and now 
for the first time it presented itself squarely and unequivocally 
as the chief topic of consideration. In spite of the efforts of 
the Episcopalians, the Independents had at last succeeded in 
shifting the basis of the argument. 

Not only had the controversy undergone a change of character ; 
it had also become a matter of more general interest. The 
earlier discussions had been confined almost solely to pam- 
phlets, and hence, it is safe to say, had claimed the attention of 
not more than a very narrow circle of readers. With the 
entrance of the newspapers into the lists, however, the public 
eye was arrested. For the first time people began to discuss 
the question in their homes, in the coffee-houses, on the street 
corners. Once a subject of purely spiritual concern, it now 
assumed a prominent place among the burning questions of the 
hour, to influence them or to be influenced by them, as the case 
might be. 

Some four numbers of the "American Whig" series had 
already appeared when "Timothy Tickle" began to wield his 
"Whip for the American Whig." His appearance on the scene 
gave the "Whig" occasion to reiterate, this time in language 
more stirring than before, his warning cry against the danger 
which menaced the country. "You are yet to be chastised 
only with whips," he says, a propos of the name chosen by his 

1 "American Whig," No. i., Parker's New York Gazette, March 14, 1768. 



198 THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY. 

antagonist; "but depend upon it, when the apostolical monarchs 
are come over, and well established in their American dominions, 
you, and such as you, will be chastised with scorpions. But this 
is not all : the bellum episcopale will doubtless be declared with 
every circumstance of awful pomp ; and this extensive conti- 
nent may soon be alarmed with the thund'ring signal, the 
sword of the Lord, and of the Bishop. Then, O dreadful ! 
The torrent of episcopal vengeance ! Then all who will not 
be so senseless as to adore the mitre and surplice, and dedicate 
both their consciences and their purses to his episcopal Majesty, 
may lay their account with — with what? with something I 
will not yet particularly name, but what one may easily discover, 
by turning over a Church history or two. This may be the fate 
of many, unless indulgent heaven interpose, by not suffering the 
right reverend and holy tyrants to plunge their spiritual swords 
in the souls of their fellow creatures ; or, if this is permitted, by 
determining the secular powers, not to suffer their anathemas to 
be executed to the utmost limits of their severity. I know what 
I am saying, Americans shall feel the truth of what I have now 
surmised, at least in part, if they do not now bestir themselves, 
and unite as one man to oppose the erection of spiritual 
monarchies, with all the heroism they would display in oppos- 
ing a formidable array of dons and monsieicrs." 1 Here is 

lu Remarks on the title of 'A Whip for the American Whig, 1 " Parker's 
New York Gazette, April 4, 1768. Hawks, who quotes the extract and gives 
the above reference (see Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, 
i. 144, note 1), has taken it, not from the Gazette, but from a garbled version 
in Inglis's Vindication, Introduction, vi. In the Gazette for April 18 the 
"Whig" gives another sample of his eloquence in the same strain : "Let my 
lords the bishops, 1 ' he says, "be once landed and fortified in their palaces, 
guarded by their dependents, and supported by their courts, and instead of this 
coaxing and trimming we shall soon hear the thunder of excommunication 
uttered with all the confidence and pride of security. The soft bleatings of 
the lamb will be changed into the terrible howling of the wolf; and every 
poor parson whose head never felt the weight of a bishop's hand will soon 
know the power of his pastoral staff, and the arm of the magistrate into the 
bargain. . . . Without the knowledge of mankind it is impossible to govern 
them well. This necessary accomplishment seldom falls to the lot of specu- 
lative mortals immured in a study. Hence their conceit, contradiction, and 
obstinacy. Give the reins to one of these book- worms, and he will attempt 



THE POLITICAL MOTIVES OF THE "WHIG." 199 

another of his tocsins : " A bishop and his officers, independent 
of the people ! " he cries ; " I tremble at the thought of such a 
powerful spy, in a country just forming a state of soundness 
and stability. Rouse then, Americans ! You have as much 
to fear from such a minister of the Church as you had lately 
from a minister of state; and whether this project is not a 
device of the latter, by dividing us to favour his designs, tho' 
he is now in disgrace, is submitted to your wisdom, to discern 
and prevent." 1 

Strange as it may seem, such utterances as these were not 
the aberrations of a solitary disordered fancy. In one form or 
another they were made again and again, and they were con- 
sidered, discussed, and repeated seriously, if not soberly, by 
earnest and patriotic men. We know now that this conjunction 
of ecclesiastical and political motives in the English colonial 
policy was a pure figment of the imagination. But, though it is 
certain that there was no basis in fact for the suspicion that the 
English state authorities as such were in any way concerned in 
the episcopal project, it is equally certain that their complicity 
was suspected by a large proportion of the American public ; 
and it is a historical fact that, however unfounded this mistrust 
may have been, it had no small influence in alienating the 
colonists from the mother country at this critical juncture. 

If any doubt the importance which the ecclesiastical side of 
the question had assumed in contemporary politics, let them 
examine the motives which led the " American Whig " to under- 
take his task. His aim, as he informs his readers, is to advocate 
"the general liberties " of his fellow-subjects in North America. 
To this end he has chosen the particular subject of the Ameri- 
can episcopate and a consideration of Dr. Chandler's Appeal to 
the Public in favor of it, since he esteems the question to be one 
of greater importance in its consequences to his native country 
" than the imposition of any customs, or commercial restrictions, 

to drive the chariot of the sun : let him be an ecclesiastic besides, and im- 
pelled by the two irresistible momentums of the glory of God and the salvation 
of souls, and how can he refrain from adopting the Popish comment upon the 
text, compel them to come in ! " 

1 "American Whig," No. v., Parker's New York Gazette, April 11, 1768. 



200 THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY. 

which affect not the right of conscience." x It is possible that 
the intention of many, perhaps of the author of these words, 
was precisely the opposite of that here stated ; it may be that, 
actuated primarily by an uncompromising hostility to the introduc- 
tion of bishops, they artfully coupled the episcopal question with 
the political in order to secure its certain defeat. The question 
is hard to answer. However one looks at the matter, whether 
he gives the priority to the one or the other impulse, the main 
conclusion must remain the same, — that the ecclesiastical ele- 
ment was playing a large part in contemporary politics. 

Dr. Chandler had asserted that there was little opposition to 
the project among the people at large. This statement was 
strenuously contradicted by the " American Whig." He admits 
that, before the public was informed of the seven famous peti- 
tions and of the united attempts of the clergy to introduce 
bishops into the country, the Doctor had not heard of, or per- 
haps foreseen, "any clamor on this account"; but now, after 
these events and since the publication of the Appeal, he appeals 
to him whether " a very general uneasiness is not visible among 
the people," and " a general popular opposition expressed 
against his episcopal project, among all ranks of men, as they 
become daily more diffusively acquainted with the reality of the 
design." He is sure that the Doctor will find himself grossly 
mistaken in his estimate of the tame acquiescence of the inhab- 
itants, and moreover, " that if the zealous opponents of his Amer- 
ican episcopate merit the genteel appellation of ' noisy hot-heads 
and pragmatical enthusiasts,' he will hear of not a few such 
among the lay members of his own communion." Not only are 
the laity of the Church of England in Virginia 2 "warmly and 
almost universally opposed to it," he says, but there is an ex- 
treme likelihood that a majority of the American Episcopalians 
throughout the colonies are equally hostile. " Should any 
British ministry therefore be found so weak, or so corrupt, as 
to betray the true interest, and disregard the tranquility of the 
provinces by the establishment of spiritual lordships," concludes 
the "Whig," "for my part I should conceive no scene more 

la American Whig," No. x., Ibid, May 16, 1768. 
2 For Virginia, see below, ch. x. 



THE APPEARANCE OF THE " WHIP? 201 

likely to open than such a one as we have recently seen ; I 
mean the conduct of the populace with respect to the officers 
appointed under the late unpopular statute. 1 Nor would I be 
answerable for the safety of the ablest prelate that ever wore a 
mitre, was he to arrive in this country, under the character of a 
Protestant American Bishop." 2 It must be borne in mind that 
these are the utterances of a bitter partisan ; but, in spite of 
their extravagance of expression, they must not be relegated to 
the realm of ungrounded supposition and surmise. What is 
said about the probable attitude of the majority of the Church 
of England laity was no doubt true, assuredly so in the case of 
Virginia. The most interesting point about the passage, how- 
ever, is the threat conveyed in the concluding sentences. 

Meanwhile, as has been said, the "Whip for the American 
Whig " had entered the fray. This author did not confine him- 
self to the "Whig," but included the "Centinel" also in his 
chastisement. He begins to write, he announces, because " it is 
high time for the members of the Church of England, whose 
lenity has been much and often abused by them, to vindicate 
themselves from the false aspersions of these enemies to peace, 
and administer some wholesome discipline to the author, or 
authors of the American Whig — which paper is to be the 
future vehicle of their malice." The following is a good 
sample of the "Whip's" method of criticism: "No. I. [of the 
"American Whig"] is," he says, "stuffed with low, spurious 
witticisms, misrepresentations, scurrility, buffoonery, falshood, 
abuse, and slander. But to pass by all these, the author deserves 
flagellation for his blunders with which this piece is plentifully 
begrimed. ... It is more than probable," he continues, "that 
the same motives set some Philadelphia engineers to work, in 
writing a paper called the Centinel. . . . No. I. . . . has some- 
what more of the appearance of reasoning than the Whig ; but 
breaths the same rancorous, insolent spirit; and plentifully 
abounds in misrepresentations, impertinence, nonsense, &c. &c." 3 

1 The Stamp Act. 

2 "American Whig, 11 No. x., Parkers New York Gazette, May 16, 1768. 
3 "Whip for the American Whig, 11 No. i., Gaine's New York Gazette, 
April 4, 1768. 



202 THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY. 

Thus began the duel of words between the two chief oppo- 
nents, the "American Whig* ' and the "Whip for the Ameri- 
can Whig." None of the arguments advanced on either side 
contain much that is new ; indeed, the whole newspaper discus- 
sion is in no way striking for the cogency or the logic of its 
reasoning. Its chief interest and value consists in the picture 
which it gives of contemporaneous methods of discussion, and 
the light which it flashes upon the popular attitude toward the 
episcopal question. 

The most logical specimen of argumentation — in fact, one 
of the few contributions which can be dignified by the name of 
argument at all — is an article which appeared under the title 
"A Short Way to End Strife now it is Meddled with." The 
author presents his case under the form of ten propositions, as 
follows : — 

"i. That the convention 1 desire an American Bishop, is cer- 
tain. 

" 2. That they declare, that they only want a primitive Bishop, 
is certain. 

" 3. That they really mean what they declare, is uncertain. 

"4. That a modern English Bishop would be dangerous to 
the religious rights and privileges of all the Non-Episcopalians 
in America, is certain. 

" 5. That they ought, therefore, in justice to themselves and 
their posterity, and according to the rules of common prudence, 
to be alarmed about their religious liberty, and oppose the pro- 
ject of introducing a Bishop into America ; till they have suffi- 
cient security that he will be only a primitive Bishop, is certain. 

" 6. That the Tory scribblers, for representing them as dis- 
loyal subjects, for taking such alarm, and as a faction against 
religion, the church, and the clergy, are extremely abusive, and 
rather exasperate than allay the ferment, is certain. 

" 7. That the convention, as honest men, ought to give such 
security before they can expect our acquiescence in their project, 
is certain. 

" 8. That they have not hitherto done it, is certain. 

lw The Convention of the Clergy of New York and New Jersey." See 
above, pp. 164-165, and below, pp. 215-216. 



THE " CENTINEDS" OPENING ARTICLE. 203 

" 9. That until it is done, the opposition will proceed ; and 
may be attended with very disagreeable consequences, is highly 
probable. 

" 10. That when it is done, the controversy ought to cease, 
is certain." 1 

This stands out from the midst of the confused and abusive 
utterances of the period as a coherent and rational presenta- 
tion of the question at issue. Nevertheless, it is plain that it 
offered no solution of the difficulty; for the fears of those op- 
posed to the episcopal project, real as they might have seemed 
to their possessors, were vague and indefinite ; hence no con- 
ceivable guarantee which the episcopal party could have given 
them would have been regarded as satisfactory. 

It will be hardly worth while to examine the effusions of 
those who ranged themselves on the side of the "Whig" and 
the "Whip" respectively, for they present practically no new 
arguments, and are distinguished from their predecessors only 
in being more trivial and abusive in their remarks. The 
" Whip " characterized " Sir Isaac Foot," who had taken it 
upon himself to administer sundry " kicks " to his opponent, as 
"that lowest and most despicable of all low and despicable 
scribblers." 2 But no one of the participants in this war of words 
was in a position to criticise the others fairly : foulness, scurril- 
ity, and persiflage dominated the utterances of each and all. 

Meanwhile, the controversy was raging with equal violence in 
another quarter. A few days after the " Whig " opened the 
subject in the New York Gazette, the " Centinel " published his 
first piece in a Philadelphia newspaper. His professed pur- 
pose was to put several questions so that the people might be 
better able to judge "whether the apprehensions on account of 
our civil Liberties, which this avowed application has raised in the 
minds of many people, be well or ill founded." The " Centinel " 
shows himself more frankly uncompromising than any of his 
predecessors, declaring that he and those of his way of thinking 
will under no considerations listen to the plan for bishops, be 
the arguments and assurances what they may. "Let the 

1 Parker's New York Gazette, May 23, 1768. 
2 Gaine's New York Gazette, August 22, 1768. 



204 THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY. 

Doctor 1 flatter as much as he pleases," he says, " if ever the 
attempt be made, he will find that the prejudices and 
objections of most of our Colonies are too deeply rooted and 
too well founded for them ever to submit quietly to an American 
Episcopate, established over them, even by act of Parliament ; 
this would be to destroy their charters, laws, and their very con- 
stitutions ; and it will be well if the Doctor and his associates 
are not considered as abettors of Mr. Greenville and those 
Enemies of America who are exerting their utmost endeavours 
to strip us of our most sacred, invaluable, and inherent Rights ; 
to reduce us to the state of slaves ; and to tax us by laws, to 
which we never have assented, nor can assent." 2 

The whole argument of the "Centinel" is, to an even 
greater degree than that of the "Whig," based upon an 
assumption of the close connection between the two questions, 
the religious and the political. From the general principles of 
liberty, he maintains, Parliament ought not to interfere in the 
civil freedom of the colonies, and any application to that 
"august body," not only to make laws for them but also to 
establish among them any form of church discipline, deserves 
to be treated as an attack upon their civil liberties. 3 His aim, 
he professes again and again, is not to combat any religious 
denomination or to oppugn the theological opinions of any man 
or set of men, but to defend the liberties of his country. The 
point in dispute, as he views it, is not concerning a bishop or 
concerning episcopal discipline as such, but as to the manner of 
introducing the bishop and establishing the discipline in Amer- 
ica ; and he hopes that " the friends and lovers of America " 
will consider themselves no further concerned in the contro- 
versy than as it relates to civil liberty. 4 Though some of the 
distinctions which he formulates are a bit too fine to be appre- 
ciated, the main trend of his argument shows clearly enough 
that the theological aspect of the question had become thor- 
oughly absorbed in the political. I 

/ 

1 Dr. Chandler. 

2 " Centinel, 11 No. i., Pennsylvania Journal, March 24, 1768. 
8 "Centinel," No. vii., Ibid. May 5, 1768. 

4 " Centinel, 11 No. viii., Ibid. May 12, 1768. 



THE « CENTINEDS" HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 205 

The " Centinel " furthermore sees not only a present but a 
historical connection between religion and politics in the rela- 
tions between the colonies and the mother country. His lan- 
guage is striking : " Every attempt upon American liberty," he 
says, " has always been accompanied with endeavours to settle 
bishops among us. Thus in the reign of Charles I., when 
Laud attempted to subjugate the colonies, then in their infancy, 
he was not content with contriving to cramp their trade by 
foolish proclamations ; 1 but to complete their mortification and 
effect their ruin was upon the point of sending them a bishop, 2 
with a military force to back his authority. The same attempt 
was revived in the latter end of Queen Anne's reign ; and had 
not God in his Providence interposed, and blasted the designs 
of the enemies of Britain, the same year might have been 
remarkable for the downfall of protestantism, the introduction 
of the Pretender, and the revival of Popery in England, and for 
the establishment of bishops in America. The unsettled state 
of the nation after the accession of George I. gave the enemies 
of that prince and of their country some faint hopes of accom- 
plishing their design; and, therefore, in the year 1714, while 
the spirit of rebellion was kindling into a flame, and the friends 
of Popery and the Pretender were forming their party and 
preparing to overturn the government and the religion of their 
country, the same restless spirits, who in the last reign had la- 
boured to get bishops established in America, ' renewed their 
attempt and made one vigorous effort to accomplish ' what they 
called their ' grand affair.' But (thanks to the great overruler 
of events) the designs of both ' proved abortive.' The rebellion 
was quashed, and the scheme of an American Episcopate 
dropt of course: some persons, however, still continued to keep 
sight of the great object; and as they are always watching for 
seasonable opportunities of exerting themselves to obtain it, we 
find it resumed with great warmth not long before the rebellion 
in 1745." 3 

In the course of all the episcopal controversies, this is the first 

1 He cites as authority Rushworth, Historical Collections, ii. 718. 

2 He cites Heylyn, Cyprianus Anglicus, 369. 

8 "Centinel," No. xvi., Pennsylvania Journal, July 7, 1768. 



206 THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY. 

instance that I have found of an attempt to trace closely and 
exhaustively a connection of this sort. 1 So far as the case of 
Laud is concerned, the connection certainly holds, for not only 
is it attested by contemporaries, 2 but it is, indeed, self-evident. 
In the other instances the connection is more open to question, 
though two indications give some color to the " Centinel's " 
assumption. The first is the fact that John Talbot, one of the 
most enthusiastic advocates of an American episcopate during 
the Queen Anne period, was a notorious Jacobite, and was him- 
self supposed to have received consecration from the hands of 
the non-juring bishops. 3 The second is a passage in Horatio 
Walpole's letter to Sherlock, 4 in which he says that in his opin- 
ion one of the chief objections to the plan is that the English 
people look upon any attempt to extend the episcopate as a 
Tory scheme. It should be noted, however, that the cases in 
the eighteenth century were not parallel with those in Laud's 
time ; for Laud's efforts were sanctioned by the government, 
while those of the later period were put forth by a faction that 
was unsupported by the authority of the state. 

1 A fitting continuation of this historical survey is to be found in one of the 
later numbers of the " American Whig." The writer says : " Scarce had we 
concluded our exultation on the repeal of the Stamp Act before we heard of 
the execrable scheme for enslaving the whole continent under the dominion 
of spiritual courts. The Bishop of Llandaff assures us, that the introduction 
of Prelates into this country was the main design of erecting the society for 
propagating the gospel in the reign of King William. Ever since that period 
they have had their eye upon us ; and now when the conquest of Canada bids 
fair for such an increase of wealth, as to enable us to support the hierarchy, 
every exertion is made on both sides of the water to accomplish the project. 
Bishops preach it up, legacies are given for it. Our own clergy petition the 
King, the Universities, and others in its favor. Private letters are written to 
solicit the men in power. Pamphlets and papers are published to wheedle and 
deceive the Americans ; and the late Archbishop of Canterbury himself under- 
took to defend the scheme, and in his answer to Dr. Mayhew, who gave the 
first alarm, boldly presumes without the royal leave to intimate that if any 
colony will signify the request for a Bishop, a bishop will be sent " (" American 
Whig," No. xlvi., Parker's New York Gazette, January 23, 1769). 

2 See above, p. 21, note 2. 

3 Governor Hunter called him a " sower Jacobite." For Hunter, see above, 
p. 92. 

4 See above, p. 118 ff. ; also below, Appendix A, No. xi. 



THE " CENTWEL" ANSWERED BY THE "ANATOMIST." 207 

The " Centinel's " arguments were answered by the " Anato- 
mist " in a series of letters published in the Philadelphia Gazette. 
This writer considers the various charges made by his opponent, 
both general and particular, that the Church of England is an 
enemy to the liberties of America, that the Episcopal clergy in 
the colonies are endeavoring in conjunction with Grenville to 
enslave their fellow-countrymen, that applications for American 
bishops have ever been preludes to attacks upon American lib- 
erty, that the attempts to introduce the Pretender, to revive 
popery, and to establish a colonial episcopate are parts of one 
great movement, and he denies them all. 1 He is particularly 
strenuous in disclaiming any connection between the Stamp Act 
and the attempt to introduce bishops. 2 Episcopalians will, he 
says, both from interest and duty join the other denominations 

1 " Anatomist,' 1 No. i., Pennsylvania Gazette, September 8, 1768. 

2 The following letter to Bishop Terrick, written by Dr. Smith in conjunc- 
tion with the clergy of Christ Church, Philadelphia, June 30, 1775, after mat- 
ters had reached a crisis, testifies to his sincerity on this point : " All that we 
can do," say the memorialists, " is to pray for such a settlement and to pursue 
those principles of moderation and reason which your Lordship has always 
recommended to us. We have neither interest nor consequence sufficient to 
take any great lead in the affairs of this great country. The people will feel 
and judge for themselves in matters affecting their own civil happiness, and 
were we capable of any attempt which might have the appearance of drawing 
them to what they think would be a slavish resignation of their rights, it 
would be destructive to ourselves as well as to the Church of which we are 
ministers. But it is but justice to our superiors, and to your Lordship in par- 
ticular, to declare that such conduct has never been required of us. Indeed, 
could it possibly be required, we are not backward to say that our consciences 
would not permit us to injure the rights of the country. We are to leave our 
families in it, and cannot but consider its inhabitants entitled, as well as their 
brethren in England, to the right of granting their own money ; and that 
every attempt to deprive them of this right will either be found abortive in the 
end or attended with evils which would infinitely outweigh all the benefits to 
be obtained by it. Such being our persuasion, we must again declare it to be 
our constant prayer, in which we are sure that your Lordship joins, that the 
hearts of good and benevolent men in both countries may be directed towards 
a plan of reconciliation worthy of being offered by a great nation that have 
long been the patrons of freedom throughout the world, and not unworthy of 
being accepted by a people sprung from them and by birth claiming a partici- 
pation in their rights 1 ' (quoted by Stille, Historical Relations of Christ 
Church, 23-24). 



208 THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY. 

in the defence of their country and their liberties ; 1 but in noth- 
ing short of this can they, after the treatment which they have 
received at the hands of the various independent sects, properly 
have anything in common with them. 2 The blame for this 
unhappy state of affairs he lays at the door of his opponents. 
Dr. Chandler, he asserts, far from being the aggressor, is only 
a defendant in a dispute which was commenced by the antago- 
nists of the church in New England as early as 1734, from which 
time their attacks may, he declares, be traced down in unbroken 
sequence to the date of the Doctor's pamphlet. 3 

The "Anatomist" denies that the settling of bishops in 
America will by common law necessarily involve the establish- 
ment of diocesan episcopacy, ecclesiastical courts, and the whole 
Church of England system. He farther denies that certain of 
the statutes already made will tend to produce such an establish- 
ment, or that some act of Parliament may be passed or some 
judge intimidated " to wrest both common and statute law in 
favor of this establishment." 4 Another writer who contributed 
to the " Anatomist " series under the name of " Horatio," not con- 
tent with mere refutation, carried the war into the enemies' own 
country, and met their charges by counter charges. " To obtain 
an exclusive dominion," he says, " founded on true Oliverian prin- 
ciples, and with it a power of tyrannizing over the consciences and 
religious sentiments of all who should presume to differ from 

1 Compare the following statement from another member of the same com- 
munion : " All the members of the Church, to a man, are far from desiring 
. . . they are extremely averse to a Bishop vested with Temporal Powers, 
and those appendages before mentioned. They are convinced that such a 
measure would injure the Church . . . besides their being as fast Friends to 
every species of Liberty, religious or civil, as any Dissenter that exists " 
(" Whip for the American Whig, 1 ' No. xxxi., Gaine's New York Gazette ; 
November 9, 1768). 

2 His exact words are : " In defence of their country and their liberties, 
whenever they shall be in danger, it will undoubtedly be the interest as well 
as the duty of all denominations among us to unite ; but in nothing less than 
this have Presbyterians any right to expect the attachment of Churchmen, 
whom they have so cruelly and ungratefully treated " ("Anatomist, 11 No. i., 
note, Pennsylvania Gazette, September 8, 1768). 

*Ibid. 

4 " Anatomist, 11 No. xii., Pennsylvania Gazette, November 24, 1768. 



THE "ANATOMIST'S" TWO CONCLUSIONS. 209 

them, has, ever since the days of Knox, been the constant aim of 
those people. 1 The Church of England" he continues, " ever 
friendly to our present glorious constitution, and to the religious 
rights of every protestant denomination, hath constantly op- 
posed them in these pursuits ; and for this reason they hate 
the Church of England and ' have so ill an opinion of her ' — 
They look upon her as the grand obstacle in their way, which 
if they could once remove, their wished for superiority over the 
rest of their fellow-subjects might, they think, be easily effected. 
Is it not then equally the duty, and the interest too, of every 
religious society in the new world, as well as of the Church of 
England, to make head against this aspiring party, and to join 
unanimously in crushing the Cockatrice in the Qgg, which other- 
wise may, and assuredly will, one day become a fiery flying 
serpent?" 2 ' 

It would have been difficult for the Independents or the 
Presbyterians to frame a successful defence against this in- 
dictment. It cannot be too often insisted upon that a general 
charge of intoleration and of an attempt to further a particular 
form of discipline and worship at the expense of all others 
would have touched a weak spot in the armor of most of the 
religious bodies of the period. But, while it would have been 
reasonable to accuse the non-Episcopalians of encroaching 
upon the liberties of the established church of the mother 
country because that system did not jibe with their own, it is 
most amusing to hear their action charged to the fact that the 
Church of England was the advocate of religious freedom in 
general. 

The "Anatomist" in his twelfth letter formulates two con- 
clusions to be drawn from the recent controversy, which sum 
up the matter very well : — 

" 1st, That the advocates for an American Episcopacy do 
steadfastly declare they have no farther nor other view in this 

1 A similar charge had been made some fifteen years before by Dr. John- 
son in his " Letter containing some Impartial Thoughts on an American 
Bishop," appended to the London edition of his Elements of Philosophy . 

2 " Anatomist," No. iii., by "Horatio," Pennsylvania Gazette, September 
22, 1768. 

14 



2IO THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY. 

measure than that the Episcopal Churches in the colonies 
may have the same opportunities of keeping up a succession 
of Ministers and Ecclesiastical order in their body, and agree- 
able to their principles, which all other religious bodies in 
America do enjoy. 

" 2dly, That the opponents of this measure strive to alarm 
all America against it, contending, that although the above may 
be the specious plea of the Episcopal Clergy, yet their true 
design (notwithstanding any assertions to the contrary) is to 
introduce that yoke of spiritual bondage and jurisdiction over 
the laity, which neither they nor their fathers could bear." 1 

In this as in the other ramifications of the discussion, the two 
leaders were supported by contributions from their respective 
followers , 2 but, since their arguments bring out nothing of 
sufficient importance to warrant an examination, 3 we may pass 
them by, and, leaving the colonies for a time, see how the 
controversy was regarded by the English newspapers. 

In the spring of 1768 the London Chronicle notes that "the 
controversy relating to the fitness of sending bishops to Amer- 
ica rages strongly in the provinces of North America at this 
time." 4 During the next few years this paper followed the 
controversy with the closest attention, and printed in its col- 

1 " Anatomist, 11 No. xii., Pennsylvania Gazette, November 24, 1768. 

2 For example, " Anti-Centinel, 11 "Remonstrant, 11 and "Irenicus." 

3 The following extract from a contemporaneous poetaster (" Veridicus's 
Verses to the Whig Writer, 11 Pennsylvania Chronicle, April 11, 1768) will 
serve to illustrate the character of some of the more trivial and abusive con- 
tributions : — 

"... if in the present debate you shou'd find 
We reply with some warmth, do, for once, be so kind, 
Ye grave Centinels, Whigs, and all other abettors, 
Of the scurrilous writers of scandalous letters, 
Once for all, be assur'd what we tell you is true, 
It is not at Dissenters, as such, but at you, 
At you only we level our aim, and determine 
No such insolent, meddling, anonymous vermin 
Shall be suffered among us to sculk, with impunity, 
To disturb our repose, and infest the community 
By sowing the seeds of dissention and strife 
Among those who wou'd fain lead a peaceable life." 

4 June 21, 1768. 



CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE "LONDON CHRONICLE." 211 

urans many communications, most of which supported the anti- 
episcopal position. Like their brethren across the water, the 
contributors to the English sheets regarded the religious and 
political questions as closely allied. Their opinion was that the 
religious grievances of the colonists, though not up to that time 
carried to so great a height as those of a civil nature, were 
nevertheless as real, and, if allowed to continue and to operate 
to their full extent, might perhaps in time become more intoler- 
able. 1 Commenting upon two schemes then in contemplation, 
which were to be offered for consideration on the meeting of an 
"august assembly particularly formed on purpose to remove 
those frequent jealousies and heart-burnings between our colo- 
nies and the mother country," a writer in the London Chronicle 
remarks that these relate to such jealousies of the colonies as 
concern what they conceive to be encroachments on their civil 
rights and liberties. " But to what good purpose of theirs or 
ours," he asks, "will these jealousies and heart-burnings be 
removed, if there are among them the seeds sown of a religious 
war, ready to break out with the utmost fury, which has attended 
all ecclesiastical contests when fomented to the extremity ? " 
Since this is likely to be the event of the controversy about an 
American episcopate, he advises that the first duty of the 
"benevolent healers of civil feuds in America" shall be to 
inquire after and properly censure the authors or the instru- 
ments of the religious animosities. He accuses the state author- 
ities of a criminal negligence in having allowed the affair to go 
so far without making an effort to check it. 2 

Among the articles published in the English newspapers we 
find some arguments that are new, but more that are old. One 
of the most interesting is that in which a writer, who signs him- 
self "A Country Clergyman," elaborates a proposition which 
had to some extent been utilized by Chauncy. It is, in sub- 

1 North Briton, No. lxi., quoted by " American Whig," No. xxxiii., Parker's 
New York Gazette, October 24, 1768. 

2 " No regard, 11 he complains, " has been paid by our drowsy watchmen of 
state to . . . warnings, and now behold the beginnings of those sorrows, in 
the wildfire thrown among our colonists by fomenting their idle, wretched, 
wicked controversy about an American Episcopate " ( " William Prynne," in 
London Chronicle, July 1, 1768). 



212 THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY. 

stance, that bishops in the Church of England are no more than 
presbyters set apart by act of Parliament to perform certain 
offices in the said church ; that all the separate episcopal powers 
enjoyed by them are derived from the authority of the state, 
and by no means belong to them as clergymen of the Church 
of England : hence that there is no need of settling bishops in the 
colonies, since the Bishop of London's commissaries have with 
the approbation of their superior as much right to confer orders 
-as his lordship himself. 1 The statements upon which this argu- 
ment is based are obviously contrary to fact ; for there are now, 
were then, and had always been three totally distinct orders in 
the Church of England, the highest of which, the episcopal, alone 
possessed the peculiar function of ordination and confirmation. 

The English writers were generally agreed that there was 
little likelihood that bishops would be sent to America. One 
" Atlanticus," who sent many communications to the London 
Chronicle, quotes from a public paper, the name of which he 
omits to mention, a statement to the effect that it is absolutely 
determined not to establish an episcopate in the colonies, and 
for two reasons : first, because it is not necessary ; secondly, 
because the Americans would probably not submit to it. He 
says that he personally has never heard the purpose asserted 
on any sufficient grounds, and that he never could bring himself 
to believe that "our excellent Sovereign and Legislature ever 
intended to lay such a burden on our American brethren " ; 
that he has ever regarded it as the " device of a very few bigot- 
headed Churchmen," and is firmly persuaded that the majority 
of Episcopalians both in Old and New England have no real 
inclination to the plan. 2 The occasion for " Atlanticus's " article 
was a rumor, widely circulated in some of the public prints at the 
time, that the project for sending bishops had been revived. 

As has been said, very few contributors to the English news- 
papers wrote in favor of the plan. Those who did, however, 
like the pro-episcopal writers in the colonies, often gave expres- 
sion to opinions concerning the necessary connection between 
the episcopal and the monarchical system which were well cal- 
culated to arouse apprehension in the minds of Independents in 

1 London Chronicle, September 21, 1768. 2 Ibid. September 18, 1768. 



THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONTROVERSY. 213 

church and state. 1 On the other hand, we find among the Eng- 
lish as well as the American opponents of the scheme the same 
suspicions, the same insistence on knowing what authority the 
episcopal apologists had for asserting that the bishops desired 
would confine themselves to their purely spiritual functions, and 
what security they could give that in due time claims to tem- 
poral power would not be advanced. 2 

Such was the newspaper controversy of 1 768-1 769. In re- 
viewing the arguments of the two parties concerned, we find 
that those who contended for the introduction of bishops sought 
to prove that no temporal authority was expected or desired for 
the proposed episcopate, and hence that the matter concerned 
the Episcopal communion as a purely religious body, and that 
all other persons or persuasions were unjust, intolerant, and 
meddlesome in interfering. Their opponents, on the other 
hand, insisted that they had all the reason in the world for con- 
cerning themselves in the question ; that, in spite of all assur- 
ances to the contrary, they had good cause to fear that the 
proposed establishment would involve in time many innova- 
tions, such as spiritual courts, the assumption of secular func- 
tions by the bishops, the taxation of the inhabitants for the 
maintenance of the episcopate, and the introduction of tithes — 
a measure which would be a dangerous menace to the integrity 
of their institutions political and civil. They went even farther, 
and included the attempt to foist an episcopate upon them 
among the oppressive measures recently directed against 
them by the English government. These arguments, as such, 
are not new ; 3 but the weight of emphasis laid upon them, as 
compared with that attached to questions of a theological com- 
plexion, is new, and the popular interest is also new. 

1 For example, "Crito" (Ibid. September 26, 1768) says, "I cannot con- 
clude without observing that some late alarming transactions, and the republi- 
can spirit which prevails in some of our Colonies, give too much reason to 
apprehend that what has happened in England [the Puritan Revolution] may- 
happen in America, and that this rage against Episcopacy may be a prelude 
to downfall of monarchy." 

2 Cf. London Chronicle, September 19, 1768. 

3 The one last named of course played no part in the Mayhew and pre- 
Mayhew controversies. 



214 THE NEWSPAPER CONTROVERSY. 

Hence the significance of the newspaper utterances lies in 
phases of public opinion which they both moulded and reflected, 
and in the sure evidence which they furnish, that the episcopal 
question, in its political aspect, had become important in the 
minds of the people. One certain indication of the widespread 
interest which the subject had aroused is the fact that a New 
York publisher found it a profitable investment to collect all 
the articles which contributed to the discussion, and to reprint 
them in the form of pamphlets. Certainly, if the question of 
the establishment of bishops did not contribute a lion's share in 
causing that enmity to the mother country, which was mani- 
fested mainly in a political direction, it was involved in the 
struggle and deserves to be regarded as an important part of it. 

One more point in regard to the significance of the news- 
paper controversy deserves notice. It is generally admitted 
that, while the majority of the Puritans advocated the principle 
of forcible resistance to the oppressive measures of the home 
government, many influential members of the Church of Eng- 
land preached the doctrine of non-resistance and passive obedi- 
ence. 1 Upon closer examination it will be seen that most of 
these persons were in the Middle and Northern colonies, par- 
ticularly in the latter, where the Puritan element predominated, 
and that almost to a man those who sought the introduction of 
bishops adopted this attitude. In view of these facts it is at 
least a tenable hypothesis that the bitterness of the controversy 
brought out so sharply the latent hostility between Episcopalian 
and Puritan, that many churchmen who might otherwise have 
taken the side of their country were, by the force of their in- 
jured religious convictions, driven over to the loyalist ranks. 

1 One should, of course, be careful not to go too far on this point. Large 
numbers of prominent Episcopalians, even among the clergy, particularly in 
the Southern colonies, were ardent patriots. See Perry, A7nerican Episcopal 
Church, i. ch. xxiv., "The Position of the Clergy at the Opening of the War 
for Independence." Cf. also Dr. George E. Ellis, in his article " The Senti- 
ment of Independence, 11 in Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, vi. ch. iii. 
240-244. The letter from the clergy of Christ Church, Philadelphia (cited 
above, p. 207, note 2), shows that the leaders of at least one important con- 
gregation were not without patriotic sympathies. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE CONVENTIONS AND THE EPISCOPAL QUESTION, 1766-1775. 

In the preceding chapters we have followed the course of the 
struggle for and against the establishment of an American 
episcopate as it was carried on in various contemporaneous 
publications ; we have examined the arguments advanced by 
both parties in letters, public and private, in pamphlets, broad- 
sides, and newspaper articles, and have, in this way, sought to 
make clear the attitude of the officers and members of the 
various churches, and of the public at large so far as it inter- 
ested itself in the question. Up to this point, however, we have 
been almost exclusively concerned with the opinions, utterances, 
and actions of individuals as such. It is now time to consider 
what had been done, and was to be done, by the opposing 
religious bodies as organizations. 

It will be remembered that the pamphlets of Dr. Chandler 
did not proceed from his own initiative, but were undertaken 
at the united request of his episcopal brethren expressed in a 
convention assembled primarily to deliberate and act upon this 
very matter. 1 The origin of this convention may be traced to 
an agreement, entered into by the Episcopal clergy of the 
provinces of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, to hold 
voluntary annual conventions " for the sake of conferring 
together upon the most proper methods of Promoting the 
welfare of the Church of England, and the interest of religion 
and virtue, and also to keep up as a body an exact correspond- 
ence with the Honorable Society." 2 This preliminary action 

1 The suggestion had originally come from Dr. Johnson. See above, p. 164. 

2 See a letter from the assembled clergy to the secretary of the Society, 
dated May 22, 1766, quoted by Beardsley ; Life of Seabury, Appendix A, and 
by Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 416. Their purpose is more specifi- 
cally stated in a resolution which has been noticed in another connection 
(above, pp. 164-165). By the "Honorable Society 1 ' is meant the Society 
for Propagating the Gospel. 



2l6 THE CONVENTIONS AND THE EPISCOPAL QUESTION 

was taken at a meeting opened May 21, 1766, at the house of 
the Reverend Samuel Auchmuty, rector of Trinity Church, 
New York. 1 The first convention of the new organization was 
held at Elizabeth town, New Jersey, November 1, 1766. 2 Here 
a " plan of union " was formulated, consisting of several articles, 
which declared that the " design " of the association was to 
defend " the religious liberties of our Churches, to diffuse union 
and harmony, and to keep up a correspondence throughout this 
united body, and with our friends abroad." At this meeting a 
letter containing the plans of the organization and soliciting 
encouragement and aid in the advancement of them was com- 
posed and sent to the brethren resident in Massachusetts Bay, 
New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, and to the members of the 
Dutch churches. 3 The main work of the convention, so long as 
it continued, consisted in drawing up numerous petitions to the 
king, the archbishops, the bishops, the Society, and the univer- 
sities of Oxford and Cambridge, in behalf of its cause, in com- 
missioning Chandler to write his pamphlets, and in taking a 
lively part in the newspaper controversy of 1768- 1769. 

Meanwhile, the synods of the New York and New Jersey 
Presbyterians had joined forces with the several Congrega- 
tionalist associations of Connecticut, and by means of annual 
conventions composed of delegates from these various bodies, 
and of correspondence with a committee of the dissenting sects 
in London, were bending all their energies toward frustrating 
the endeavors of the rival Episcopal organization, so far as it 
was concerned with the introduction of American bishops. 4 

1 Fourteen clergymen were present. See Perry, American Episcopal 
Church, i. 415, citing Minutes of the Proceedings of the Convention, of which 
the original folio, in Seabury's handwriting, is in the possession of Professor 
William J. Seabury, D.D., of New York City. 

2 It was attended by nine clergymen from Connecticut and twenty-two from 
New York and Philadelphia. 

3 S. A. Clark, History of St. John's Church, 128-129, citing Church Review, 
iv. 572 (article entitled " American Episcopate before the Revolution ") . 

4 Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Co/lections, i. 146. Cf. Samuel 
Miller, Memoirs of John Rodger s, 186-187: "Among the measures which 
were taken for defeating the plan of an American Episcopate, and for keeping 
the non-episcopal churches awake to their interests and dangers, was the 



THE CONVENTION OF DELEGATES. 21 7 

The work of the association was supplemented by the organized 
efforts of a company of prominent Congregationalists and Pres- 
byterians, chief among whom were the Reverend John Rodgers, 
the Reverend Archibald Laidlie, the Reverend John Mason, 
William Livingston, William Smith, and John Morin Scott, who 
published a number of articles and pamphlets on the " impolicy 
and danger of an American episcopate " and kindred matters. 1 

The main purpose of the convention of the New York and 
New Jersey Presbyterian synods and the Connecticut Congre- 
gationalist associations, as expressed in its public declarations, 
was, like the purpose of the Episcopalian convention, guarded 
and disguised under indefinite generalities. Although the pro- 
fessed object in uniting was "the promotion of Christian friend- 
ship between the members of their respective bodies, the spread 
of the Gospel, the preservation of the religious liberties of their 
churches, &c," the first and second conventions " were occupied 
mainly in forming and completing their plan of union and effort," 
and the subsequent conventions in " prosecuting measures for 
preserving the liberties of their churches, threatened at the 
time by the attempts made by the friends of Episcopacy in the 
colonies and in Great Britain, for the establishment of Diocesan 
Bishops in America." 2 The association, while protesting that 
it had no objection to bishops who should confine themselves to 
overseeing the affairs of the Episcopal churches, expressed the 
apprehension that those intended to be introduced would come 
invested with the powers ordinarily possessed by Church of 
England bishops, or else would soon acquire them ; and that in 
the exercise of these functions they would necessarily encroach 

appointment of a general Convention, to compare opinions and concert plans 
for the promotion of these objects." 

1 Miller {Memoirs of John Rodgers, 192-193) characterizes these men as 
"vigilant observers of the course of public affairs . . . who did much to 
awaken and direct the public mind at that interesting period.'" 

2 See Convention of Delegates from the Synod of New York and Philadel- 
phia, and from the Associations of Connecticut, Minutes (published at Hart- 
ford, 1843, f rom tne material collected by a committee of the "General 
Association" appointed in 1842), 3. Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 
422 ff.) gives a good account of the work of this convention, based on the 
Minutes. 



218 THE CONVENTIONS AND THE EPISCOPAL QUESTION. 

upon the colonial charters, and would prejudice the liberties of 
other Christian denominations. For the purpose of averting 
such dangers, which were in its opinion inextricably interwoven 
with the episcopal system, the association made arrangements 
for holding annual meetings, for entering into correspondence 
with the English "Committee of Dissenters" in London, for 
collecting all charters, laws, and customs in force in North 
America which related to religious liberty, and for ascertaining 
the number of non-Episcopalians resident in the colonies, in 
order to prove to how great an extent they outnumbered the 
members of the Church of England. 1 

The convention held its first sitting at Elizabethtown, New 
Jersey, November 5, 1766. To the printed minutes of the 
regular proceedings of this meeting was appended a letter 
which is worth considering as a fair expression of the opinions 
of a majority of the less violent among the assembled delegates. 
The letter, as there published, bears no signature; it seems to 
have been inserted as a sample letter from a typical American 
dissenter to his correspondent in London. There is, however, 
at least a possibility that the author was no less important a 
person than Roger Sherman, and that the communication 
was addressed to the son of Dr. Samuel Johnson, William 
Samuel Johnson, who was in England as agent for the colony 
of Connecticut during the years 1 766-1 771. 2 

This letter professes much anxiety on account of sundry 
petitions that have been sent to England in behalf of an Ameri- 
can episcopate, and this not because the sects for whom the 
writer speaks are intolerant, or because they envy the Episcopal 
churches the privileges of a bishop for ordination, confirmation, 
and discipline, provided that he have no power over the other 
denominations and no share in the civil affairs of the colonists. 
It is the lack of any authoritative provision in the pending 

1 Minutes, 3. 

2 A copy of this letter was found among the papers of Sherman, and was in 
his handwriting. His biographer conjectures that it was written about 1768 
(see L. H. Boutell, Life of Sherman, 64-68). Since it was annexed to the Min- 
utes for 1766, and not incorporated in them, this hypothesis is not precluded. 
Johnson assumed his duties as agent, December 24, 1766 (Beardsley, Epis- 
copal Church in Connecticut, i. 263) . 



THE ATTITUDE OF THE CONVENTION. 219 

scheme which, he says, makes non-Episcopalians uneasy. In 
order, therefore, to insure a proper limitation of the powers 
intrusted to the proposed episcopate, he recommends that the 
question be settled under an act of Parliament providing by 
legal enactment that in the colonies the episcopal office shall 
be divested of all functions that are annexed to it by the com- 
mon law of England. Without such a guarantee, he says, the 
good-will of the other religious bodies cannot be secured, since 
to their minds it is all too probable that an unlimited episcopate 
cannot but tend to prejudice their best interests, temporal and 
spiritual. Their reasons for so thinking are, in his opinion, easy 
to explain. For example, a bishop of the Church of England is 
a public minister of state, versed in the common law, authorized 
to erect courts for taking cognizance of all matrimonial and 
testamentary causes, and to inquire into and punish " all 
offences of scandal." Such being the case, he may very 
properly claim the same functions in the colonies. Moreover, 
he continues, there is nothing to hinder a bishop, once settled, 
from enjoying the powers formerly exercised by Laud and his 
ecclesiastical courts; for the laws in force in England at the 
time when America was first settled are still valid in the colonies, 
while the later enactments limiting the exorbitant powers of the 
bishops at home do not extend to the colonies, since in no case 
has such an extension been especially mentioned. 1 In view of 
these facts, what might not be expected under an episcopal 
regime ? he asks ; might not the registrar's office, the care of 
orphans, and similar duties be transferred from the present 
officers to such as the bishop might appoint ? might not the 
legality of marriage and divorce cases be tried in an ecclesiasti- 
cal court ? And this would not be all ; for a " covetous, tyran- 
nical, and domineering prelate," or his chancellor, would have 
it in his power to harass the country, to impose fines, and 
imprisonments, and in general to act with " lawless severity." 
Still farther, not only civil danger, but also religious oppressions 
might be apprehended from the undue exaggeration of the 
power of a single denomination. In short, under an episcopal 

1 The rule was that a law passed in England should have no force in the 
colonies unless an express provision to that effect was made. 



220 THE CONVENTIONS AND THE EPISCOPAL QUESTION 

establishment, left to itself, the worst abuses are all too likely 
to appear, the event of which would be either to force the 
present inhabitants of North America " to seek new habitations 
among the heathen, where England could not claim a jurisdiction, 
or excite riots, rebellion, and wild disorder." The writer, while 
pointing out what he considers would be, under certain con- 
ditions, the inevitable result of the project in question, pre- 
serves, nevertheless, an extremely moderate tone. He concludes 
what he has to say with professions of loyalty to "our most 
gracious King and the British Constitution," and assures his 
correspondent that "we dread the consequences as oft as we 
think of this danger," that is, the danger which might result 
from the introduction of an episcopate under no legal guarantee. 
All he asks is that, if bishops must be sent, an event which he 
fears will in any case be attended with bad consequences, " they 
may be under such restraints as are consistent with our present 
state of peace and liberty " (in other words, be confined by law 
to the care of the people and clergy of their own church), and 
that other denominations may be secured against encroachments 
of their power and against the burden of their support. 1 

The writer seemingly makes a very natural and moderate 
demand, and yet the parliamentary guarantee for which he asks 
is the very last thing which the colonists would have accepted. 
From long-established principle they were averse to any parlia- 
mentary legislation in their affairs, whether it were favorable or 
unfavorable. A striking illustration of this feeling occurred in 
the first half of the seventeenth century : when, in 1645, the 
Long Parliament offered to guarantee the Massachusetts Body 
of Liberties, the representatives of the province, fearing the prec- 
edent, refused without hesitation the well-meant proposal. As 
a matter of fact, the suggestion for a parliamentary guarantee 
made in this first convention was repudiated by a later one. 2 

There is in the Minutes another letter of the same style as 
that just noticed. It is an answer by the Reverend Francis 

1 This letter is annexed to the Minutes for November 5, 1766, in the Reg- 
istry of the New Haven East Association; it is printed in Minutes (1843), 
13-14, and in BoutelPs Life of Sherman, 64-65. 

2 See below, p. 225. 



CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE LONDON COMMITTEE. 221 

Alison to a communication from the Reverend Mr. Sproat ask- 
ing why the people of Philadelphia 1 are so firmly persuaded 
that there is, at this time, a determination to send bishops to 
America. Alison cites the usual evidence : a written declara- 
tion of Chandler that Archbishop Seeker, in a conversation with 
him, has stated such an intention ; a statement of Dr. Smith 
that the Quakers of Pennsylvania have expressed a willingness 
to sign a certificate of their consent to admit a moderate episco- 
pate ; the petitions of the clergy of New York and New Jersey 
to the authorities in England ; 2 and, finally, the fact that in 
Philadelphia it is the topic of conversation in the coffee-houses 
and in public companies " as an affair that must take place, and 
as an affair that it would be disloyal and intolerant to oppose." 
Alison makes this letter to Sproat, who was one of the officers 
in the convention, an occasion for discussing the dangers of 
the expected establishment. 3 

At a meeting held October 5, 1768, also at Elizabeth- 
town, the convention drafted and sent its first letter to the 
" Dissenting Committee " in London. This letter informs the 
committee that "the Pastors of the Consociated Churches of 
Connecticut have agreed with the Synod of New York and 
Philadelphia to meet annually by Delegates in Convention on 
the most catholic foundation ; to give information of the public 
state of our united interests ; to join our counsels and endeav- 
ors together for spreading and preserving the civil and reli- 
gious liberties of our Churches ; to recommend, cultivate, and 
preserve loyalty and allegiance to the King's Majesty, and to 
keep up a correspondence through this united body and with 
our friends abroad." It says that the aim of the convention is 
twofold : first, to " strengthen our interest in suppressing and 
discouraging any measures that might be fallen upon by the 

1 Dr. Alison was vice-provost of the College of Philadelphia. See above, 
p. 195. 

2 October 2, 1765. There were seven in all: one each to the king, the 
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, 
the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and the Society for 
Propagating the Gospel. 

3 It is dated November 15, 1766, and is printed in the Minutes, 14-16, from 
the files in the Registry of the New Haven East Association. 



222 THE CONVENTIONS AND THE EPISCOPAL QUESTION. 

people committed to our care that would be inconsistent with 
our character as peaceable and loyal subjects, or detrimental to 
the public peace and tranquillity"; and secondly, "that we 
might as faithful officers in the Church of Christ watch over 
her rights and privileges, to endeavor more effectually to prevent 
any attempts of any other denomination of Christians to oppose 
us." 

Having outlined the policy of the association, the letter pro- 
ceeds to explain the reason for forming it, which is in substance 
the "very general alarm " which the recent attempts to secure 
an American episcopate have caused. Upon this particular 
issue the convention expresses itself substantially as its individ- 
ual members had done in the letters noted above, except that it 
is much more uncompromising. Although it is filled with " an 
utter abhorrence of every species of ecclesiastical tyranny and 
persecution," which it regards as the inseparable accompani- 
ment of an episcopal regime, it does not wish to oppose bishops 
as such, but only to avert the consequences inevitable upon the 
settlement of the only kind of an episcopate known to it. It 
will gladly acquiesce in any plan by which the safety and integ- 
rity of present conditions may be assured ; but it is only too 
certain that such assurance is not possible except under an epis- 
copate so mutilated as to satisfy no Episcopalian, either at home 
or abroad. In a word, the convention involves its possible agree- 
ment in such a multitude of impossible conditions as to make of 
it a practical refusal. " Nothing," it remarks a proposoi the pro- 
posed episcopate (under whatever form it might be established, 
be it noted), " seems to have such a direct tendency to weaken 
the dependence of the Colonies upon Great Britain and to sepa- 
rate them from her — an event which would be ruinous and 
destructive to both, and which we, therefore, pray God long to 
avert." Such a combination of apparent compliance and essen- 
tial irreconcilability can be matched only in the address of the 
earlier Stuart parliaments to the crown. 

The profession here made concerning the origin and purpose 
of the convention differs in two marked particulars from that 
first given to the public. In the first place, it lays greater em- 
phasis on the matter of loyalty to the English crown, probably 



THE ACTIVITY OF THE CONVENTION. 223 

for the purpose of propitiating the English dissenting brethren, 
particularly Jasper Mauduit, who was friendly to the crown. 1 
In the second place, it confesses with greater distinctness what 
was really the primary and sole purpose of the dissenters in 
uniting ; namely, their opposition to the introduction of bishops. 

The convention, after explaining its policy and justifying it 
by arguments already familiar, next states, as its reason for 
writing to the London committee, its wish to solicit the cooper- 
ation of that body in the effort to keep bishops out of the colo- 
nies. Although it apprehends no immediate danger, it has 
reason, it says, to believe that the prelates in England, who 
have the cause so much at heart, are constantly on the alert for 
a favorable chance of pushing it ; accordingly, it behooves anti- 
Episcopalians to be constantly on their guard. Since, however^ 
the great distance from England would prevent the colonists 
in case of a sudden move on the part of their opponents from 
doing anything until too late, they are " obliged to depend on 
the vigilance and interest of . . . friends in Great Britain who 
are engaged in the same common cause." Therefore the 
convention, as a representative of the colonial anti-episcopal 
interests, urges its English brethren to unite with it in a com- 
mon effort, and suggests a correspondence by which the colo- 
nists may be kept continually informed of such things as it 
would be advantageous for them to know. 2 

Besides preparing the foregoing letter, the convention, during 
this session, appointed a standing committee to take charge of 
future correspondence with the friends in London, with the 
brethren in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, 
and with the presbytery in Boston. It also appointed local 
committees in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 

The first reply of the London committee of which there is a 
record was written August 4, 1770, not, however, in answer to 
the letter just noticed, but to a later letter of the convention, 
sent September 14, 1769. In this communication the London 

1 Mauduit, who had been agent for Massachusetts from 1762 to 1766, was 
at this time chairman of the committee for managing the civil affairs of the 
dissenters. 

2 Minutes, 12.-2$. 



224 THE CONVENTIONS AND THE EPISCOPAL QUESTION. 

committee explains its delay in replying as due to the fact that 
the letter from the colonial brethren did not come to the hand 
of its chairman until nine months after it was written. The 
chairman immediately summoned a meeting of the committee, 
which took the letter into consideration, and, as a result of the 
deliberations, its secretary is now authorized to assure the con- 
vention that the committee is "fully sensible of the many civil 
and religious inconveniences that would arise from the introduc- 
tion of Diocesan Bishops into America," and will do its utmost 
to " oppose and frustrate any such design." At the same time 
it has the pleasure of stating, from information based upon the 
strictest inquiries from the best authorities, that there is no im- 
mediate cause for apprehension. Moreover, it hopes that the 
government is " so sensible of the confusion such a step would 
make among our American brethren " as to block the design, 
" however warmly some of our Bishops may wish for it, and 
express their desires in their sermons on public occasions." 
Should any new danger of a revival of the project arise, how- 
ever, the committee is ready to lend its efforts to defeat it. The 
letter concludes with a profession of willingness to continue the 
correspondence, and with the assurance that the committee will 
promptly impart to the convention any information relative to 
the matter 1 which it can obtain. 

A second letter from the London committee is dated January 
22, 1 77 1. It is interesting from the fact that it contains a 
consideration of a proposal made by the convention for securing 
an agent to look after its interests in London. The committee 
opposes this scheme as impracticable and impolitic : in the first 
place, because it would be difficult to find a person for the 
position endowed with the qualities specified by the convention ; 
in the second place, because, even if such a one could be found, 
he would not answer the end, since he would not have the 
" weight with administration as this committee would ; for, 
whatever he might at any time say, they would look upon him 
as an agent for the colonies and under their influence, whereas 
no such bias could be imputed to this Committee." 2 Evidently 
no means were to be left unemployed to prevent the hated 

1 Minutes, Appendix, 65. 2 Ibid, 67-68. 



THE END OF THE CONVENTION'. 225 

establishment. It was at this time, according to a letter from 
the convention to the committee, that the colonies of Connecti- 
cut and Massachusetts gave instructions to their agents to 
oppose any movement toward the introduction of an American 
episcopate of which they could get wind. 1 

It is interesting to note that now for the first time the conven- 
tion declares emphatically that nothing, not even a parliamen- 
tary, act limiting the episcopal powers, could induce it to accept 
bishops ; for " no act of Parliament," it says, " can secure us 
from the tyranny of their jurisdiction." 

Without further study it is possible to form a sufficiently clear 
idea of the policy and methods of the " Convention of Delegates 
from the Synod of New York and Philadelphia and from the 
Associations of Connecticut." It held annual meetings and 
continued to correspond with the " Dissenting Committee " in 
London till 1775, when its sittings were interrupted by the out- 
break of the Revolution. Since the outcome of the war removed 
all possibility of an episcopal establishment in America by action 
of the English government, 2 the convention had no occasion to 
meet again. Its work was done. 3 

1 September 5, 1771. See Minutes, Appendix, 32-34. 

2 The part which the convention, through its connection with the London 
committee, had in averting such a possibility will be considered in a later 
chapter. 

3 Cf. Minutes, 48, editorial note. 



15 



CHAPTER X. 

THE OPPOSITION IN VIRGINIA. 

The opposition of Virginia to the introduction of bishops is 
of peculiar interest, for in that colony the Church of England 
was established, and Episcopalians were stronger than they were 
in any other part of the country. 

Before the episcopal question came to the front, the most 
significant feature of Virginian ecclesiastical history after the 
death of Sherlock, and the one with which his successors in the 
see of London had most to do, was that concerning the tobacco 
troubles and the events leading out of them. 1 It is important 
to note that in these disputes the Bishop of London had taken 
the side of the crown, — a fact which contributed not a little to 
hurt the popularity of the Church of England in the public 
estimation. 2 It needed but a few such acts as this on the part 
of the bishop to convince even Episcopalians that their safety 
lay on the patriotic side. 

So much for the bishop's personal activity; now let us see 
how his representatives were faring in the province. Though 
commissaries continued to be appointed up to the Revolution, 3 
no holder of the office received a commission for the exercise 
of his functions after the expiration of Gibson's patent. Up 
to the time of William Robinson, however, who became com- 
missary in 1 76 1, each new appointee had been granted a royal 
warrant and a salary. Robinson was unsuccessful in obtaining 

1 More familiarly known as the "Parson's Cause" (see above, p. 130, note, 
where a brief bibliography is given) . A letter from Commissary Robinson to 
Bishop Terrick, August 17, 1764, rehearses the history of the question at 
length. See Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 489-501. 

2 Cf. Richard Bland, Letter to the Clergy of Virginia, passim. 

3 The commissarial office and the presidency of William and Mary College 
usually went to the same person. The commissary as such was a member of 
the council and a judge of the Supreme Bench. See Robinson to Sherlock, 
November 20, 1760, in Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 463-470. 



THE CASE OF RAMSAY. 227 

even a warrant, and for that reason did not feel authorized to 
call conventions of the clergy, as his* predecessors had done. 1 
But although the bishops who succeeded Gibson showed 
very little interest in maintaining any discipline in Virginia, cases 
came up from time to time which indicated that their authority 
was still regarded in the colony. For example, in 1767 the in- 
habitants of Albemarle County, •taking offence at the conduct 
of their minister, the Reverend Mr. Ramsay, applied to a lawyer 
to redress their grievances. At a loss to know how to proceed, 
he referred the matter to the General Court. The court, con- 
sidering that it had jurisdiction over all causes, criminal, civil, 
and ecclesiastical, and hence that it could legally take cogni 
zance of a casa o^jhis nature, ordered the issue of citations, tha 
the affair might fIRnquired into and justice be done between 
the parties. 2 As soon as the matter came to the attention of 
Governor Fauquier, he at once sent a report of it to Bishop 
Terrick, with the assurance that he would keep him informed 
of every step in the process. 3 There is an entry on the back 
of the original letter among the Fulham manuscripts stating 
that his lordship replied to Fauquier, September 7, 1767. It 
would be interesting to know what position he took on the 
question, but unfortunately his letter has disappeared. More- 
over, even the issue of this case is not certainly known, although 
there is some ground for believing that proceedings were stopped 

1 See Robinson to Terrick, M^y 23, 1765, Ibid. 503-505. 

2 Richard Bland, writing August 1, 1 771, to Thomas Adams, said : "The 
King has assented to the Act of Assembly which declares that the general 
court shall take cognizance of and ' have Power & jurisdiction to hear & Deter- 
mine all causes, matters, or things whatsoever relating to or concerning any 
Person or Persons ecclesiastical or civil ; or to any Persons or Things of what 
nature soever, the same shall be'" (Wi'lliam and Mary College Quarterly, 
January, 1897, v. 150 ft".). But Bland does not mention the date of the act, 
and I can find no record of it. It is doubtful if it was in force at this time. 
Certainly the custom had hitherto been for the governor and council to proceed 
against irregular clergymen (see the Brunskill case, above, pp. 136-137). 
According to the Methodus Procedendi issued by Gibson in 1728, the commis- 
sary was empowered to take cognizance in such cases ; but any authority 
which that instrument carried (and it seems to have been little observed) 
ceased at the expiration of Gibson's commission. 

3 Fauquier to Terrick, April 27, 1767, Fulham MSS. 




228 OPPOSITION IN VIRGINIA. 

by the death of the accused minister. There is a possible 
allusion to this outcome in an interesting discussion, dating from 
about this time, concerning the theoretical extent of the author- 
ity of the Bishop of London in regard to clerical offences. 
The discussion is contained in two letters, dated respectively 
November n, 1770, and April 17, 1 771, from President Nelson 1 
of Virginia to Lord Hillsborough, at that time secretary of state 
for the colonies. 2 The occasion of Nelson's first communication 
was the perusal of the sixty-seventh article of his instructions, 
which directed him to use " the proper and usual means for the 
removal " of any minister, already preferred to a benefice, who 
should appear to him " to give scandal either by his doctrines 
or his manners." Nelson states that there are few irregular 
clergymen in the colony, but expresses his doubts whether, if 
any should be found, there are any " proper & regular means 
in this country to remove such for want ... of the Bishop of 
London having any power in this respect from his Majesty." 3 
He is of opinion, however, that, were his lordship possessed 
of any such power, he might delegate it to his commissaries, to 
enable them to hold jurisdiction and "to enquire into the 
Orthodoxy, Morals, or neglect of Duty of the Clergy or to 
suspend or deprive on proper occasions." 4 After pointing out 
that the king, as constitutional head of the church, had formerly 
by a special commission to the Bishop of London given such 
power to the commissaries, who with the assistance of two 
assessors held courts, Nelson continues, "but I cannot find 
that any Bishop of London hath had such a Commission since 
the time of Dr. Edmund Gibson, of that See, and consequently 

1 William Nelson (1771-1772) was president of the Council of Virginia, and 
during the interval between Lord Botetourt and Lord Dunmore, 1770-1771, he 
acted as governor. He also presided over the General or Supreme Court of law 
and equity of the province, being regarded as one of the ablest lawyers of his 
time. 

2 These letters are printed in Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 

532-534. 

3 This power Gibson had, of course, given to his commissaries while his 
commission was in force. 

4 Gibson had done this by the issue of commissions and sets of instructions. 
For examples of these see below, Appendix A, No. vi. 



CLERICAL DISCIPLINE IN VIRGINIA. 229 

no such courts have been held here since that era." 1 In view 
of these facts, since a court is needed for taking cognizance of 
spiritual causes, and since there exists in Virginia no court 
for the purpose, Nelson wishes to submit the case to the 
attorney and solicitor generals, to know whether the General 
Court, which claims the right, and has already attempted to 
exercise it in two cases, both abated by death, 2 can properly 
exercise that function. 3 

Meanwhile, before sending his second letter, Nelson read the 
Gibson commission a second time more carefully, but found 
no reason for changing his opinion ; for, as he reminds Lord 
Hillsborough, with the death of Gibson the powers granted to 
him had expired, and the commissaries since that time had 
received no other appointment than letters from the succeeding 
bishops of London, which they regarded as insufficient to 
authorize their taking any official action in ecclesiastical con- 
cerns. Nelson complains that, for want of such commissarial 
authority to set up an ecclesiastical court, the prestige of the 
crown is suffering ; 4 and requests again that, if an adequate 
commission cannot be sent to the commissary, the attorney 
and solicitor generals be moved to deliver an opinion on the 
jurisdiction of the General Court in spiritual causes, particularly 
since the case of an immoral clergyman is pending, which, in 
the ensuing October, is going to be used by both parties as a 
test case to determine the extent of the jurisdiction of the 
General Court. 5 But at this time the political issues directly 
preceding the Revolution were beginning to absorb the attention 

1 Such courts had almost never been held in Virginia. Commissary Gar- 
den held several in South Carolina, his most celebrated case being the trial of 
George Whiterleld. 

2 Without doubt one of these was Ramsay's case. See above, pp. 227-228. 

3 Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 532-533. 

4 The Independents and Congregationalists, particularly in New England, 
liked to get hold of such statements as this. 

5 Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 533-534- It is strange that 
Nelson makes no mention of the act to which, according to Bland's letter of 
August, 1771, the king had given his assent. Possibly it was ratified between 
April and August, in consequence, it may be, of Nelson's inquiry ; but the 
fact that it is not recorded among the Virginia statutes inclines one to doubt 
whether it was passed in the form of a regular legislative act. 



230 OPPOSITION IN VIRGINIA. 

of the colonists, and there appears to be no record of any test 
trial, or of any opinion of the attorney and solicitor generals. 
If any opinion was given, ■ it must have favored the General 
Court, particularly if the crown had assented to an act of 
assembly by which ecclesiastical jurisdiction was either granted 
or confirmed to this court. 1 

Though in general the clergy and laity of the Church of 
England in Maryland and Virginia had taken very little share 
in the agitation for an American episcopate, 2 at least one earnest 
attempt to secure the desired bishops was made in each of these 
colonies. Only the Virginia case will be noticed here. 3 All the 

1 See above, p. 227, note 2, and p. 229, note 5. 

2 This fact was noticed at the time. The " American Whig," in his thir- 
teenth article, says : " From the best information I have been able to obtain, 
the clergy of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 
and the West India Islands had no concern in the late petitions transmitted 
on this subject ; they seem to have been hatched by a few warm missionaries 
in the provinces of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania ; and propagated to 
the Eastern colonies by the help of the frequent unconstitutional assemblies, 
latterly convoked under the name of the convention " (Parker's New York 
Gazette, June 6, 1768). President Nelson, in a letter to Edward Hunt, May 
11, 1771, says: " The Virginians, tho' almost all of the Episcopal Church, 
have as yet taken no part in the Dispute, the reason I believe is, that it is a 
matter of more indifference to us than to the other Provinces which are full of 
every kind of Dissenters inimical to Episcopacy. We do not want Bishops ; 
yet from our Principles I hardly think we should oppose such an establish- 
ment; nor will the laity apply for them" (Willicnn a,7id Mary College Quar- 
terly, January, 1897, v. 149-150; from Nelson's letter-book in the Episcopal 
seminary at Alexandria, Virginia). It is interesting to note in this connec- 
tion what Hawks thought on the subject. " A faithful bishop? he says, 
" would have been a blessing to the colony, and this was plainly perceived by 
the worthy part of the clergy in Virginia [in support of this statement he cites 
Jones, Present State of Virginia, 99] ; nor did they hesitate to ask that one 
might be sent, with powers so limited in certain particulars as to allay the sus- 
picious fears of the people, who dreaded nothing more than ecclesiastical 
tyranny" {Ecclesiastical Contributions, i. (Virginia) 95). Hawks's assertion 
conveys an utterly false impression. Apparently there never was an appre- 
ciable number of either clergy or laity in Virginia who desired anything of 
the sort ; indeed, most indications show that they were not only indifferent, 
but hostile to the plan. In preceding pages of this work an attempt has 
been made to account for their attitude. 

3 For general accounts of this affair, see Perry, American Episcopal Chtirch, 
i. 419 fF. ; Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, i. (Virginia) 126-131, citing 



A CONVENTION OF VIRGINIA CLERGY SUMMONED. 23 1 

evidence goes to show that the original moving cause of the 
application from this province came from the " United Con- 
vention of New York and New Jersey," which deputed Dr. 
Myles Cooper, president of King's (now Columbia) College, 
and the Reverend Robert McKean, missionary at Amboy, New 
Jersey, " to visit the southern part of the continent, for the pur- 
pose of securing the cooperation of their brethren in that region 
in procuring an American episcopate." x 

Probably, owing to the efforts of this committee, Commissary 
Horrocks 2 issued in April, 1771, by means of an advertisement 
in the Virginia papers, a summons for the clergy of the prov- 
ince to meet on the 4th of May at the College of William and 
Mary. Since only a small number answered the call, it was 
voted, in the informal meeting which was held, that the com- 
missary insert a second advertisement, stating the business to 
be taken up in the proposed convention. In consequence of 
this second summons, twelve clergymen presented themselves, 
and the convention was opened on the 4th of June. The 
question as to whether the number present was sufficient to 

Burk, Virginia, iii. 364-365 ; Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collec- 
tions, i. 155-156. 

1 Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, i. (Virginia) 126, citing the Journals 
of the Uttited Convention of ij6y, pp. 32-35, from the Seabury MSS. 

2 James Horrocks, sixth president of William and Mary College, succeeded 
William Robinson as commissary in 177 1. On account of failing health he 
was forced to resign his duties, and to go to England early in the summer of 
the same year. He left, to represent him in his various duties, the Reverend 
John Camm as president of the college, the Reverend Mr. Willie as commis- 
sary, and the Reverend Samuel Henley as minister of Bruton parish, of which 
Horrocks was rector. Horrocks died in England, March 22, 1772. He was 
succeeded as president and commissary by Camm. Burk, Hawks, and 
Perry name Camm as the one who called the convention and presided at it ; 
but this statement is erroneous. They may have taken the notion from the 
fact that Camm was the leader, on the Episcopal side, of the disputes which 
arose from the action taken by the meeting. Gwatkin, a member of the con- 
vention, in his Letter to the Clergy of New York and New Jersey (p. 4), says 
simply that it was called by the " commissary." The two letters of Nelson 
and Bland, which have been already mentioned, and which Burk, Hawks, and 
Perry probably never had an opportunity to peruse, seem to settle the ques- 
tion beyond a reasonable doubt. See William and Mary College Quarterly 
(January, 1897), v. 149-156 passim. 



232 OPPOSITION IN VIRGINIA. 

constitute a convention was first debated, and was decided in 
the affirmative. Having settled this point, the convention 
passed to a consideration of the business for which it was 
assembled ; namely, the advisability of addressing the king on 
the subject of an American episcopate, and, after some dis- 
cussion, voted in the negative, though it decided unanimously 
to refer the matter to the Bishop of London for his opinion and 
advice. Later the question of addressing the king was recon- 
sidered, in spite of a strong opposition, the movers of which 
argued, first, that such a proceeding would indicate ingratitude 
to their diocesan, the Bishop of London ; secondly, that it would 
be impolitic, in view of the state of the country, particularly 
after the late Carolina disturbances ; 1 and, finally, that if such 
an address were sent, it should be first referred to the assembly 
for its approval. But these arguments were disregarded by the 
majority ; Camm, indeed, refused even to consider the request 
to refer the proposition to the assembly, because he was " sure 
it would not succeed." 2 

The exact form of the resolution adopted by the convention 
was as follows : " That a Committee be appointed to draw up 
an Address to the King for an American Episcopate, and that 
the Committee shall apply for the Hand of the Majority of the 
Clergy of this Colony, in which, if they succeed, the Bishop of 
London is to be addressed for his Concurrence, and requested 
to present their Address to his Majesty, but without a Con- 
currence of a Majority of the Clergy the Address not to be 
transmitted, and that the Reverend Messieurs Camm, Willie, 
Skyring, White, and Fontaine, or any three of them, are ap- 
pointed a committee to prepare the said Address." 3 

Two leading clergymen of the colony — the Reverend Thomas 
Gwatkin, professor of mathematics, and the Reverend Samuel 

1 An allusion to the Mecklenburg convention and resolves. 

2 See Gwatkin, Letter to the Clergy of New York and New Jersey, 4-5. 
From now on Camm figures as the leader of the pro-episcopal party. He had 
led the clergy of Virginia in the " Parson's Cause," and had gone to England 
to advocate their claims. He represents the Tory element in the Revolution. 

3 Of the twelve members present, eight, including Horrocks, voted for the 
resolution, and four against it. See Bland to Adams, August r, 1771, William 
and Mary College Quarterly, v. 153. 



THE PROTEST OF GWATKIN AND HENLEY. 233 

Henley, professor of moral philosophy, in William and Mary 
College — registered a formal protest against the vote of the 
meeting. They assigned seven reasons for their opposition, 
which are in substance as follows : — 

First, because the clergy present at the convention insuffi- 
ciently represent the clergy of the province, who number over 
a hundred. 

Secondly, because the resolution contradicts one previously 
made by the same convention, to the effect that the king shall 
not be addressed on the subject of an American episcopate. 

Thirdly, because the jurisdiction of the American episcopate 
desired would probably include the other colonies as well as 
Virginia, and therefore it would be improper for the clergy of 
Virginia to " petition for a Measure which, for ought that ap- 
pears to the contrary, will materially affect the Natural Rights 
and fundamental Laws of the said Colonies without their Con- 
sent and Approbation." 

Fourthly, "because the establishment of an American Epis- 
copate at this time would tend greatly to weaken the connexion 
between the Mother Country and her Colonies, to continue their 
present unhappy Disputes, to infuse Jealousies and Fears into 
the Minds of the Protestant Dissenters, and to give ill-disposed 
Persons Occasion to raise such Disturbances as may endanger 
the very Existence of the British Empire in America." 

Fifthly, because it is " extremely indecent ... to make such 
an Application without the concurrence of the President, Coun- 
cil, and Representatives of this Province." 

Sixthly, because, since the colony has always hitherto been 
under the jurisdiction of the Bishops of London, and the rule 
of the present diocesan is perfectly satisfactory, they think " a 
Petition to the Crown to strip his Lordship of any Part of his 
Jurisdiction but an ill Return for his past Labors, and contrary 
to our Oath of Canonical Obedience." Moreover, since the 
convention has already determined to consult his lordship in 
the matter, they think it should wait to hear from him before 
proceeding farther "in an Affair of such vast Importance." 

Seventhly, because they regard the method to be employed 
for ascertaining the wishes of the majority of the clergy of the 



234 OPPOSITION IN VIRGINIA. 

province as not only undignified but even " contrary to the 
universal Practice of the Christian Church." 1 

Of these seven reasons on which Gwatkin and Henley based 
their objections to the action of the convention, that concern- 
ing the unaptness of the occasion chosen for making the appli- 
cation is the only one of any cogency. 2 Two of them, the first 
and the sixth, display a total misunderstanding of the resolution 
quoted in their own preamble. 3 Although it is true that the 
convention was so small as to be hardly a representative body, 
it will be noticed that it planned to take no action until assured 
of the support of a majority of the brethren present. In peti- 
tioning the crown, the intention was not to circumvent their 
diocesan, but rather to cooperate with him in a cause which he 
had as much at heart as they. The address was first to be 
referred to him for his concurrence, and was to be by him 
presented to the king. It was certainly no evidence of 
ingratitude to the Bishop of London to seek to relieve his see 
of a burden which its successive holders had been striving to 
throw off ever since the days of Sherlock. Richard Terrick, 
who held the office at this time, was just as anxious as any 
of his predecessors to transfer to a native episcopate the 
functions which custom had fastened on him. He had many 
times said so in no uncertain terms. 4 

1 Gwatkin, Letter, 6-8. The protest was also printed in the London 
Chronicle, August 30, 1771, and has been reprinted by Hawks, Perry, and 
others in their accounts of the episode. 

2 This is the fourth. The third, and perhaps the fifth, were, however, not 
without weight. 

3 Perry, Hawks, and the Collections do not print the preamble ; Burk does. 

4 Writing to the clergy of Connecticut, February 18, 1765, a few months 
after his accession, he said : "lam very sensible (and in this I speak the sen- 
timents of my brethren) that nothing can more effectually contribute to the 
happy and prosperous state of the colonies, in a civil as well as a religious 
view, than the appointment of resident bishops. A bishop of London, how- 
ever inclined to do his duty, is too sensible of the importance of the charge 
which long usage and custom has committed to him, and too conscious, of the 
little service he can do to a clergy at this distance from him, not to feel very 
anxiously the necessity of a more immediate inspection and government" 
(Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 138, note 1). In the 
very year in which the protest appeared (1771), he wrote to Dr. Johnson, 



THE BURGESSES" RESOLUTION OF THANKS. 235 

The last objection advanced by Gwatkin and Henley is based 
on a technicality of procedure, and therefore need not concern us. 

Soon afterward the matter was brought before the House of 
Burgesses. As a token of their approval and appreciation of 
the action of the protestants, the burgesses, on July 12, passed, 
" nemine contradicente" the following resolution : " That the 
Thanks of this House be given to the Reverend Mr. Henley, 
the Reverend Mr. Gwatkin, the Reverend Mr. Hewitt, and the 
Reverend Mr. Blajid for the wise and well-timed Opposition 
they have made to the pernicious Project of a few mistaken 
Clergymen, for introducing an American Bishop : A Measure 
by which much Disturbance, great Anxiety, and Apprehen- 
sion would certainly take place among his Majesty's faithful 
American Subjects : And that Mr. Richard Henry Lee and Mr. 
Bland do acquaint them therewith." 1 It is interesting to see 
the representative assembly of Episcopalian Virginia taking the 
same stand against the introduction of bishops as that of Puritan 
Massachusetts. 2 This decided expression of opinion on the part 

July 22 : "I feel as sensibly as you can wish me to do the distress of the 
Americans in being obliged, at so much hazard and expense, to come to this 
country for orders. But I own I see no prospect of a speedy remedy to it. 
They who are enemies to the measure of an Episcopacy, whether on your 
part of the globe or ours, have hitherto found means to prevent its taking 
place. Though no measure can be better suited to every principle of true 
policy, none can be more consistent with every idea I have formed of truly 
religious liberty. . . . But whatever are our sentiments or wishes, we must 
leave it to the discretion and wisdom of Government to choose the time for 
adopting that measure. Whether we shall live to see that day, is in the hands 
of God alone. We wish only that we could look forward with pleasure and 
enjoy the thought" (Beardsley, Life of Johnsoii, 345-346; Chandler, Life of 
Johnson, 200-201 ; Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 395, citing 
Chandler) . 

1 Address froin the Clergy of New York a?id New Jersey to the Episcopalians 
in Virginia, 7, note, citing Rind's Virginia Gazette, July 12, 177 1. See also 
Perry, Anierica7i Episcopal Church, i. 420. 

2 On January 12, 1768, the Massachusetts House of Representatives had 
commissioned Samuel Adams to write a letter on the subject to Dennis de 
Berdt, its agent in London. It ran as follows : " The establishment of a 
protestant episcopate in America is . . . zealously contended for : And it is 
very alarming to a people whose fathers, from the hardships they suffered 
under such an establishment, were obliged to fly their native country into a 



236 OPPOSITION IN VIRGINIA. 

of the House of Burgesses put a stop to any further proceed- 
ings on the subject of the proposed address to the king. 

The matter, however, was not allowed to drop. The hostile 
attitude of some, and the indifferent attitude of a majority, 
of the Virginia Episcopalians caused the " Convention of the 
Clergy of New York and New Jersey " to address them a 
letter, 1 which requires a brief consideration. 

The authors of the Address profess the same motives which 
actuated Chandler in writing his Appeal, that is, a wish to ex- 
pound the true plan on which it is desired to establish bishops, 
thinking that if their brethren in Virginia understand its true 
character they will lend it their support. 2 Among other things 
they point out a fact which, as has been shown, was disre- 
garded, either intentionally or unintentionally, by Gwatkin and 
Henley in the sixth article of their protest ; namely, that since 
the time of Gibson the Bishops of London have properly pos- 
sessed no jurisdiction over the colonies, although "according 
to former Usage," they add, "our Candidates apply to the 
Bishop of London for Ordination, and he is generally allowed 
to have a more immediate Connection with the Colonies than 



wilderness, in order peaceably to enjoy their privileges, civil and religious: 
Their being threatened with the loss of both at once, must throw them into 
a very disagreeable situation. We hope in God such an establishment will 
never take place in America, and we desire you would strenuously oppose it. 
The revenue raised in America, for ought we can tell, may be as constitution- 
ally applied towards the support of prelacy as of soldiers and pensioners : If 
the property of the subject is taken from him without his consent, it is im- 
material, whether it be done by one man or five hundred ; or whether it be 
applied for the support of ecclesiastical or military power, or both. It may 
be well worth the consideration of the best politician in Great Britain or 
America, what the natural tendency is of a vigorous pursuit of these measures 1 ' 
{Collection of Tracts from the Late Newspapers, i. 67 ; W. V. Wells, Samuel 
Adams, i. 157; Mellen Chamberlain, John Ada?ns, 30-31; Protestant Epis- 
copal Historical Society, Collections, i. 154-155; Perry, American Episcopal 
Church, i. 418). This was not the only time Massachusetts had taken legis- 
lative action on the matter (see above, p. 225). 

1 Entitled, An Address from the Clergy of New York and New Jersey to 
the Episcopalians in Virginia; occasioned by some late Transactions in that 
Colony relating to an American Episcopate (New York, 1771). 

2 Address, 9. 



THE "ADDRESS" OF THE NORTHERN CLERGY. 237 

any other Bishop." 1 Then, by a citation from Bishop Terrick's 
sermon before the Society for Propagating the Gospel, in 1764, 
they easily refute the assertion that an appeal for a resident 
episcopate would either be disagreeable to him or be regarded 
by him in the light of a reflection upon his conduct as diocesan. 2 

The remainder of their paper is conceived in an apologetic 
tone, and, since it differs but little from most of the publications 
on the subject, it needs only a word or two here. One point 
they insist on is that the Society has been consistent from its 
foundation, having always sought to secure for the colonies 
bishops with a jurisdiction purely spiritual. 3 They also scout 
the aspersion that it has ever had any design which did not 
appear on the surface, 4 and indignantly deny the charge that 
the petitions which it has drawn up from time to time were a 
result of direction from England, or that Chandler's Appeal was 
written at the instigation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. 5 

To convince the Virginia public at large of what is wanted, 
and what a part of the clergy of their own colony have actually 
asked for, they quote from a public print 6 a sample of the pro- 
posed address from the Virginia clergy to the king. It runs as 
follows : " We make it our humble Request, that the Bishop 
appointed may come over with no Authority, no Expectation of 
acquiring any in Respect to the Laity ; that he may be em- 
powered to interfere with no Privileges, civil or religious, at 
present enjoyed by any Society professing Christianity, but 
dissenting from the national Church ; that he may not be 

1 Address, 27, note. 

2 He "hopes that a Provision will be made for a more regular Exercise of 
Discipline " in the colonies, and cannot " apprehend that this Provision, con- 
fined merely to Purposes of Order and Decency, without affecting any Privilege 
or Distinction, which might seem to interfere with the Rights of Civil Govern- 
ment, or give any just Occasion to those of a different persuasion, with whom 
we wish to live as Friends, and Servants of the same common Master, can 
reasonably admit of Objection from any quarter " {Ibid. 27-28) . For other 
utterances of Bishop Terrick on this head, see above, p. 234, note 4. 

3 Address, 30-32. 
*Ibid. 32. 

5 Ibid. 34-35. For these charges, see Blackburne, Critical Commentary, 
65, 71, note. 

6 Purdie and Dixon's Virginia Gazette, July 4, 1771. 



238 OPPOSITION IN VIRGINIA. 

suffered to think of taking out of the Hands of Your Majesty's 
Courts, already fixed by Law, any of the Business which they 
have been used to transact, and which, it must be acknowledged, 
they have hitherto transacted with universal Acquiescence and 
Approbation ; that he may be confined, within the Limits of his 
pastoral Charge, to Offices purely episcopal ; and that he may 
owe a Maintenance suiting his Station and Dignity (as our 
Commissary does at present) 1 to the Bounty and Benefaction 
of Your Majesty, or to any other Mode of Support not burthen- 
some or disagreeable to your American Subjects." 2 Such is a 
brief outline of the address of the Northern clergy to their 
Southern brethren. 3 

Gwatkin replied to the Address in the following year. 4 His 
main justification for the position which he takes on the ques- 
tion is based on grounds of political expediency. " I have not," 
he says, " any aversion to Episcopacy in general, to the mode 
of it established in England, or even to an American Episcopate, 
introduced, at a proper time, by proper authority, and in a proper 
manner" ; but he protests against an "immediate establishment," 
from a prudential regard to the practicable, a. desire to preserve 
peace, heal divisions, and calm the angry divisions of an en- 
raged people." 5 According to the existing Virginian laws, the 
General Court is, he says, an " Ecclesiastical Court," and claims 

1 Through the good offices of his diocesan. Commissary Robinson had 
finally obtained his salary, with a warrant for arrears. See a letter to Bishop 
Terrick, June 6, 1766, in Perry, Historical Collections, i. (Virginia) 519-524. 

2 Address, 35. 

3 Besides quoting from the proposed address to the king, the authors cite 
the words of Camm, in an answer which he had written to the protest of one 
of the opposing clergymen. Camm said, in effect, that he would not have had 
anything to do with the application to the king, had he not believed " that 
such an American Episcopate, as is at present desired, by any of its Favorers, 
as far as he could judge, . . . can affect, in the least Degree, neither the nat- 
ural Rights, nor the fundamental Laws, nor the Property, nor the legal Privi- 
leges, civil or religious, of any Body of Men, or of any Individual whatever " 
(Address, 36). 

4 His pamphlet is entitled A Letter to the Clergy of New York and New 
Jersey, Occasioned by an Address to the Episcopalia7is in Virginia (Williams- 
burg, 1772). 

5 Ibid. 8. 



GWATKIN'S VIEWS ON EPISCOPACY. 239 

"an entire and complete jurisdiction over the clergy of the 
Province." 1 In his opinion, bishops settled in Virginia ought 
to enjoy all the powers of English bishops ; for otherwise a 
precedent, dangerous to the integrity of the establishment in the 
mother country, would be set for curtailing the powers legally 
appertaining to the episcopal office. 2 He shows that in Vir- 
ginia this episcopal power would involve, in the first place, a 
seat in the council ; in the second place, the authority to set up 
ecclesiastical courts ; thirdly, jurisdiction over the laity, as well 
as over the clergy, of its own communion ; and, finally, at least a 
negative on the choice of the vestries in the matter of presenta- 
tion. 3 Obviously all this would have clashed with ideas and institu- 
tions that were, by both law and custom, firmly rooted in Virginia. 
A unique contribution to the episcopal discussion is Gwatkin's 
attempt to prove that the powers of a bishop, in their fulness, 
are involved not only in the English state system, but in the very 
structure of the church. In order to show this, he quotes the 
following extracts from the canons : " Priests and Deacons must 
do nothing without the knowledge and consent of the Bishop " 
(Apostolical Canons ) ; " Priests are not allowed to proceed to 
business without the license of their Bishop " (Canons of An- 
cyra) ; " If any priest go to the Emperor without the Consent 
and Letters of the Bishop of the Province, and especially of the 
Metropolitan, he shall not only be ejected from the communion, 
but also be deprived of his dignity ; but if Business require him 
to make any application, he shall do it with the Advice and 
Consent of the said Metropolitan and Bishop, and leave their 
Letters " (Antiochian Canon). 4 This argument, reenforced 
though it is by a formidable array of quotations, really amounts 
to nothing, since it only proves the necessary subjection of 
priests to their bishops ; and this was something which every 
advocate for an American episcopate desired and provided for, 
even in his most limited plans. 

1 A Letter to the Clergy of New York and New Jersey, Occasioned by an 
Address to the Episcopalians in Virginia (Williamsburg, 1772), 11. 

2 This argument had been often used before. 

3 Ibid. 12-15. 

4 Ibid. Postscript. 



240 OPPOSITION IN VIRGINIA. 

Such is the general character of the reasoning of Gwatkin, 
who apparently had the last word to say in the discussion. 
Many of his arguments are either technical or faulty, or at best 
of mere antiquarian interest. An attempt to estimate them at 
their true worth has shown that the root of his objection, and 
probably of that held by those who actively supported his pro- 
tests, is the old one which we have so often had occasion to con- 
sider, that bishops would of necessity come over vested with 
state powers, which, involving encroachments on the existing 
colonial system, would tend to increase the opposition to the 
home government, already strained to the danger point. 1 

1 This is well voiced in an earlier protest written by Hewitt and Bland. 
" As the Right of appointing them [bishops] is vested in the Crown," they 
say, " and will, at present, be delegated to a Ministry, whose Sentiments have 
ever appeared extremely hostile and inimical to the common Rights of Man- 
kind, it can never be thought for the Interests of Religion, in the present Situ- 
ation of political Affairs, to extend the Power of the Crown, and the Influence 
of such Ministers . . . Such Ministers in the Appointment of an American 
Bishop could never think of chusing a Man the most proper and fitting to 
discharge the Functions of so important an Office. They would only be solici- 
tous to meet with a Person of blind Submission and unlimited Obedience who 
should never feel any Remorse in executing what they, in their Omnipotence, 
should command him 11 (cited in the Address, 38-39). 



CHAPTER XI. 

FROM SHERLOCK'S DEATH TO THE REVOLUTION, 1761-1775. 

It remains to consider the history of the episcopal question 
in the colonies from the death of Sherlock to the beginning of 
the Revolution. Sherlock's successor was Thomas Hayter. 
He was consecrated October 5, 1761, but died January 9, 1762, 1 
before he had time to identify himself in any way with the colo- 
nies. Hayter was succeeded by Richard Osbaldeston, who 
continued in office till his death in 1764. 2 He seems to have 
possessed the esteem and confidence of the Lords of Trade, 
for they consulted him frequently on colonial church matters. 3 
Although always willing to give an opinion on such occasions, 
he was extremely careful not to meddle with any cases except 
those relating to the maintenance of the clergy or the status 
of the Church of England in those colonies where it was estab- 
lished. For this reason he refused to decide upon the legality 
of an "Act for Propagating Christian Knowledge," of which 
Henry Caner, rector of King's Chapel, Boston, had complained 
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who in turn had handed the 
matter over to Osbaldeston. 4 

On the other hand, the question of the North Carolina vestry 
acts, 5 which was still unsettled, 6 gave the bishop an opportunity 
to make several declarations of interest. The act of 1755 hav- 
ing been annulled by the crown, the assembly of North Carolina 

1 For Hayter, see Dictionary of National Biography, xxv. 305-307. 

2 Ibid. xlii. 275-276. 

3 From long-established custom, for he was no longer by law diocesan of 
the Church of England in the colonies. Cf. Archbishop Seeker to Dr. Caner, 
October 6, 1762, in Perry, Historical Collections, hi. (Massachusetts) 474-476. 

4 Osbaldeston to Seeker, October 11, 1762, Ibid. 476-477. 

5 The Church of England was at least partially established in North Caro- 
lina during this period ; its regular establishment was first secured by an act 
of assembly of May, 1765. See North Carolina Records, vii. 472-491. 

6 See above, p. 130 ff. 



242 FROM SHERLOCK'S DEATH TO THE REVOLUTION. 

in 1760 passed two other laws, which reached the hands of 
Bishop Hayter for consideration November 25, 1761. After 
his death they were returned to the province by his executors. 
Nothing farther was done until the following spring, when, on 
March 18, 1762, the Board of Trade ordered its secretary, Mr. 
Pownal, to transmit the two acts to the new bishop, in order 
that he might pass an opinion on them, "so far as they regard 
the establishment of the Church of England in that Colony the 
right of patronage to livings and the method established for the 
suspension or removal of Ministers guilty of immorality." 1 

On the 3d of May, Bishop Osbaldeston sent his reply. His 
objections were directed mainly against a provision in the last 
part of one of the laws, in regard to the punishing of irregular 
clergymen. The act proposed to set up a new jurisdiction for 
prosecuting offenders, by lodging the articles of complaint 
against them in the temporal courts, " which," according to the 
bishop, " have an undoubted Right to judge in temporal Mat- 
ters ; but Immoralities being spiritual Crimes whether in the 
Minister or people, wherever the Church of England has been 
established these have always been censured in the Ecclesiastical 
Courts by the Bishop or his Commissaries. To set up any other 
authority for this purpose is taking away the little Remains of 
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction if any is left in that province and re- 
ducing the Bishop of London by the Act only to certify as a public 
Notary that the Minister is duly ordained. This part of the 
Act is contrary to the common principles of Justice, to punish 
spiritual Crimes in temporal Courts. It is likewise contrary to 
an express Law in North Carolina, which enacts that all Statutes 
made in England for the Establishment of the Church shall be 
in force there." 2 He should have said that such offences had 
been tried in the ecclesiastical courts during the time of Gibson ; 
but that, after his commission had lapsed with his death, such 
courts ceased to have any legal status. 3 According to the letter 
of the law, therefore, Osbaldeston's contention was unsound. 

1 North Carolina Records, vi. 751. 

2 North Carolina Records, vi. 714-716. 

3 As a matter of fact, there were at this time no spiritual courts in the prov- 
ince {Ibid. vii. 483) . 



THE NORTH CAROLINA VESTRY ACT OF 1763. 243 

Nevertheless, his objections seem to have had weight with the 
Lords of Trade ; for soon afterward, they presented the two 
acts, entitled respectively "An Act for establishing Vestries" 
and " an Act for making Provision for an Orthodox Clergy," 
to the king, with a recommendation that he reject them. This 
was done by his Majesty in a sitting of the Privy Council held 
at the court of St. James on June 3, 1762. 1 So long as Bishop 
Osbaldeston occupied the see of London, he saw to it that his 
functions, or what he regarded as such, were not infringed upon. 

His successor, Richard Terrick (1 764-1 777), did not take 
such high ground. 2 More than one of his utterances show that 
he had come to recognize, as fully as Sherlock did, the impo- 
tence of the colonial authority formerly appertaining to the see 
of London, and the necessity of substituting for it a system of 
control by resident bishops ; 3 but either from want of energy or 
because of the more unfavorable circumstances which had arisen, 
he made no efforts to alter the existing conditions. 

Meanwhile, the North Carolina assembly had passed a new 
vestry act, which gave less authority to the people and more to 
the crown, and, in cases of clerical immorality, allowed an appeal 
from the sentence of the provincial governor to the Bishop of 
London. 4 Bishop Terrick, to whom it was referred, wrote to 
the Board of Trade, January 13, 1766, approving the act. 5 He 
gives it as his opinion that the new law is free from the objec- 
tionable features of the acts of 1755 and 1760, namely, the 
provisions relating to powers claimed by the vestries with regard 
to the right of presentation, and those affecting the prerogative 
of the crown. He holds that, since it is silent concerning any 
claims to such rights, it impliedly leaves them vested in the 
crown, to be exercised by the governor by virtue of his patent 
from the king. Many subterfuges, however, remained open 

1 North Carolina Records, vi. 723. 

2 For Terrick, see Dictionary of National Biography, lvi. 78-79. 

3 For examples, see above, p. 234, note 4. 

4 The right of presentation was transferred from the vestries to the crown 
(see pamphlet in Fulha7n MSS.~). It was by this act that the first regular 
establishment of the Church of England in North Carolina was secured. 

5 North Carolina Records, vii. 150-153. 



244 FROM SHERLOCK'S DEATH TO THE REVOLUTION. 

to the vestries which the governor could neither foresee nor 
prevent. 

In his letter the bishop also makes incidentally some interest- 
ing comments on his conception of his own jurisdiction. Under 
the new act he sees no need of any certificate from the Bishop 
of London as a prerequisite to candidacy for induction ; for this 
restriction formerly acted, he says, only as a check on the ves- 
tries. Since the right is now vested in the governor, security 
from any one of the bishops of the Church of England would, 
in his opinion, be sufficient. 1 

He notes, further, that the act provides " that if any Incum- 
bent shall be guilty of any gross Crime or Immorality, it shall 
be lawful for the Governor with the advice of His Majesty's 
Council to suspend him ; and that such suspension shall remain 
until such time as the Bishop of London shall either restore or 
pass sentence of Deprivation upon him by notifying the same 
to the Governor." 2 Concerning this provision he asks: "But 
by what authority can the Bishop of London (who has no Com- 
miss 11 from the Crown) proceed judicially to restore or to pass 
Sentence of Deprivat n ? As the case stands at present the 
Bishop cannot deprive him, however guilty, or if the Governor 
suspends the Clergyman, however innocent, he must remain sus- 
pended if it depends on the Bishop to restore him." 3 

1 Terrick's recommendation on this matter was not adopted, and the Bishop 
of London continued to enjoy the sole right of issuing certificates (see Gov- 
ernor Tryon to the Reverend D. Burton, secretary of the Society, April 30, 
1767 {North Carolina Records, vii. 457-458). 

2 This seems to have been the only act passed by any colonial assembly 
making any such provision. 

3 Terrick got out of the difficulty by granting the governor " full power and 
authority over the clergy " (Reverend James Reed to the secretary of the 
Society, July 2, 1771, North Carolina Records, ix. 5). I find no record that 
the act was either confirmed or rejected by the crown. On March 20, 1767, 
" their Lordships took [it] into consideration . . . together with the Bishop 
of London's Observations thereupon in his letter to the Board dated 13 th January 
1766, and it was Ordered, that the Draught of a Representation to His Majesty 
thereupon should be prepared — which was approved, transcribed, and signed 
30 th March" {Ibid. vii. 546). Since the Bishop's recommendation was favor- 
able, and since the attitude of his predecessors had been the main cause of the 
rejection of former acts, it is to be presumed that at least the crown did not 



TERRICICS COMMENTS ON HIS JURISDICTION. 245 

Led up to the subject by a consideration of these questions, 
Terrick next takes occasion to observe " not only how defective 
the Bishop of London's Jurisdict n is in the plantations, but what 
Inconveniences arise from that defect. It is far from being 
clear," he says, "that a Commiss 11 granted to the Bishop of 
London as it was to Bishop Gibson wo d be an adequate remedy 
to those Inconveniences : Bishop Sherlock, who certainly co d 
Judge as well as any man how far the powers given by that 
Commiss 11 wo d enable him to go, and who it is to be supposed 
had no object 11 to the exercise of any Jurisdict n which wo d 
answer the purposes for which it was intended, stated his object 11 
to such a Commission to his late Majesty in Council as defec- 
tive in many parts of it and giving Powers which no Bishop at 
this distance from the Plantat ns co d exercise effectually." 1 The 
supposition that Bishop Sherlock would have been willing to 
undertake the charge of the colonies under a commission arm- 
ing him with adequate powers has been shown to be erroneous. 
He was totally opposed to the exercise of any such powers, and 
was bent upon shifting the seat of episcopal power from the 
mother country to the colonies. 

After reviewing the reasons of his predecessor for wishing 
a colonial episcopate, and the history of his attempts to secure 
it, Terrick adds : " And whoever considers the superior Abilities 
of Bishop Sherlock, as well as the more enlarged extent of our 
dominions in America since his time, will readily allow that the 
same objections may be urged with additional strength by one 
who by experience feels the force of them & sees too much rea- 
son to lament that with the best inclinat ns to do his duty He 
feels himself unequal to that important part of it — the care and 
superintendency of Religion in the Plantations." 2 

annul the new act. Moreover, several indications go to show that it was 
accepted by the home government. For example, Governor Tryon, in a letter 
to the Reverend T. S. Drage, July 9, 1770, speaks of the Church of England 
as "a Religion that was ... by Act of the Legislature in 1765 established 
upon the most solid foundation" {Ibid. viii. 217). At any rate, until Tryon 
was transferred to New York in 1771, he always acted upon this assumption; 
and the act was practically in force in the province for some years, and seems 
to have materially strengthened the position of the Church of England there. 
1 North Carolina Records, vii. 153. 2 Ibid. 



246 FROM SHERLOCK'S DEATH TO THE REVOLUTION. 

Manifestly, Sherlock had fixed his policy on his successors. 
Following in the footsteps of their zealous predecessor, they 
desired bishops for the colonies ; they refused to take out com- 
missions for the legal exercise of an authority which appertained 
to them from immemorial custom ; and, except in rare instances, 
they declined to interfere actively in colonial ecclesiastical affairs. 
As has been said before, just what motives actuated the initiator 
of this policy it is hard to tell. If Sherlock's own assertions be 
accepted, the diocese was growing beyond the control of a single 
man, and a non-resident at that ; or, if we go beyond his own 
statement, perhaps he was influenced by a personal disinclina- 
tion to undertake an onerous task which he felt did not properly 
belong to him ; or, finally, he may have refused to perform the 
functions of a colonial diocesan that he might make the need 
of a resident episcopate more imperative and more apparent, 
and so force its establishment. But why did he desire bishops 
for the colonies ? Here again, three conjectures at least are pos- 
sible. It may have been that he was moved by an honorable 
desire to further the spiritual interests of his fellow-believers 
beyond the seas ; it may have been that he had a selfish wish to 
shift the burden of the charge from his own hands into others' ; 
or, in accordance with the Jacobian maxim of "no bishop no 
king," he may have been following the Laudian policy of ex- 
tending the authority of the Church of England establishment 
for the purpose of rehabilitating the steadily crumbling political 
structure in the colonies. Perhaps all these considerations had 
a share in influencing his action. But whatever object he had 
in mind, he regarded it necessary, as the first step in its attain- 
ment, to show that the Bishop of London was incapable, not only 
de facto, but also de jure, of exercising any ecclesiastical author- 
ity over the colonial dependencies of Great Britain. In tiis 
efforts to secure his end, he struck a blow at the Bishop of Lon- 
don's power in the colonies from which it never recovered, and 
he succeeded in stamping his policy indelibly upon those who 
came after him. From his time on, we never again find any 
incumbent of the see conscious of the rights, or active in the 
exercise, of his colonial jurisdiction. 

Such was the state of things during the period between the 



THE RESTORATION OF COMMISSARIES ADVOCATED. 247 

death of Sherlock and the Revolution. The authority of the 
Bishop of London had faded to such a pale tradition that, in 
spite of the laws establishing the Church of England, which still 
remained on the statute books of some of the colonies, a con- 
temporaneous historian was justified in stating broadly that there 
was really no provincial church government. 1 Naturally, many 
remedies were suggested, of which, as has been seen, that most 
frequently urged was the settlement of resident bishops. But 
other plans were also put forward. For example, the author 
just alluded to remarks that perhaps a superintendent from the 
"Society of 1701 might have a good effect, with a power and 
instructions to remove missionaries from one station to another, 
as the interest of propagating the gospel might require." 2 Dr. 
William Smith, provost of the College of Philadelphia, later a 
stanch supporter of the plan of introducing bishops, 3 advocated, 
in 1762, the restoration of commissaries, who should have more 
power than they had hitherto possessed and should be distributed 
as follows : one for the district of New Hampshire, Massachu- 
setts, and Rhode Island, with a residence at Boston ; one for 
the district of Connecticut and New York, with a residence at 
New York; one for the district of Pennsylvania and New 
Jersey, with a residence at Philadelphia ; one for Maryland, if 
Lord Baltimore would give his countenance and authority to 
support him in his duty ; one for Virginia, to reside at the Col- 
lege of William and Mary ; one for the district of North and 
South Carolina, with a residence probably at Charleston. 4 

These suggestions, however, met with scant consideration, 5 

1 Meaning, of course, according to the Church of England system. See 
Douglass, Stimmary, i. 230. 
*Ibid. 

3 See above, ch. viii. passim. 

4 The seat of the commissary for Maryland was evidently not determined ; 
perhaps it was meant to be left to the proprietary. Delaware was, of course, 
intended to be included in the district of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and 
Georgia probably in that of North and South Carolina. See Dr. Smith's 
" General Account," in Fulham MSS. 

5 Nevertheless, February 3, 1763, the clergy of Pennsylvania sent an 
address to Bishop Osbaldeston, praying that he would make Dr. Smith their 
commissary (Fulham MSS.). 



248 FROM SHERLOCK'S DEATH TO THE REVOLUTION. 

for the episcopal question was the leading topic of the hour. 
Having already described the various controversies waged on 
the subject, and the arguments urged for and against the plan, 
we shall now examine the correspondence between the leading 
Episcopal clergymen in the colonies and the bishops in England. 
In this way we can supplement the public by the private utter- 
ances of the pro-episcopal party, in order to make sure whether 
its real and its assigned motives always agreed. 

The accession of King George III., 1 and the prospect of a 
speedy termination of the war which had been for some years 
engaging the attention and taxing all the energies of the Eng- 
lish nation, gave a glimmer of hope to those earnest in the 
cause of American bishops. Accordingly, Dr. Johnson sent a 
letter to Archbishop Seeker to sound him on the advisability of 
moving the new sovereign to settle bishops in the colonies at 
the conclusion of the peace, and enclosed the draft of a pro- 
posed address to his Majesty. 2 Seeker, however, thinking that 
the time was not yet ripe, and fearing that any rash step might 
ruin the whole cause, at once replied, " This is a matter of 
which you in America cannot judge ; and therefore I beg you 
will attempt nothing without the advice of the Society, or of the 
Bishops." 3 Indeed, Seeker's whole energy at this time was 
bent toward checking the rather unbridled zeal of his colonial 
correspondent. This attitude is best seen in an undated answer 
to a letter from Johnson of July 13, 1760. Johnson had pre- 
pared a paper for the London Magazine, and also letters for Lord 
Halifax and William Pitt, and had sent them to Seeker for his 
approval. The Archbishop, while acknowledging the truth and 
justice of the statements contained in the article submitted to 
him, was nevertheless opposed to publishing them unseasonably 
to the world, and thought that even when the right time should 
come, the preferable method would be a private application to 
such persons as had the ear of the king. To flaunt the matter 
in a public magazine, the character and reputation of which his 

1 October 25, 1760. 

2 See Beardsley, Life of Johnson, 256 ; Chandler, Life of Johnson, Appendix, 
184-188 (Seeker to Johnson, December 10, 1761). 

3 Ibid. 



CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO BISHOPS. 249 

Grace justly held in low esteem, would be the surest way to draw 
down upon their cause the contempt of those men in high posi- 
tions whose good opinion it was necessary to secure. 1 After 
this reproof he rewards his correspondent with a crumb of com- 
fort by way of assuring him that he has not been idle in their 
common cause. " I have spoken," he says, " concerning a new 
Lieutenant-governor, in the manner which you desired, to the 
Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pitt, and also to Lord Halifax, in 
whom the choice is. They all admit the request to be a very 
reasonable and important one, and promise that care shall be 
taken about it. The last of them is very earnest for bishops in 
America. I hope we may have a chance to succeed in that 
great point, when it shall please God to bless us with a peace." 
Owing to the fall of the Newcastle ministry, which followed 
hard upon the writing of this letter, the sincerity of its promises 
was never put to the test, and the subject was again left hanging. 
It will be unnecessary to follow in detail the correspondence 
of this period, abounding as it does in expressions of alternate 
hope and fear. If it ever happened, as it did in a few cases, 
that some member of the ministry promised to bring the mat- 
ter up for consideration, adverse circumstances invariably oc- 
curred to prevent him from keeping his word. 2 Johnson and his 

1 For the letter, see Beardsley, Life of Johnson, 252-253 ; Chandler, Life 
of Johnson, Appendix, 179-182. 

2 See, for example, a letter from Seeker to Johnson, March 30, 1763, in 
Chandler, Life of Johnson, Appendix, 191-195- 0n September 28, 1763, he wrote 
again to Johnson : " What will be done about Bishops, I cannot guess. Appli- 
cation for them was made to Lord Egremont, who promised to consult with the 
other ministers, but died without making any report from them. His successor, 
Lord Halifax, is a friend to the scheme ; but I doubt whether in the present 
weak state of the ministry he will dare to meddle with what will certainly raise 
opposition 1 ' (Beardsley, Life of Johnson, 276-278). Compare also Seeker to 
the Reverend Jacob Duche, September 16, 1763, in Perry, Historical Collec- 
tions, ii. (Pennsylvania) 389-391. Writing again to Dr. Johnson, May 22, 
1764, he says: "The affair of American Bishops continues in suspense. 
Lord Willoughby of Parham, the only English Dissenting Peer, and Dr. 
Chandler have declared, after our scheme was fully laid before them, that 
they saw no objection against it. The Duke of Bedford, Lord President, 
hath given a calm and favorable hearing to it, hath desired it may be reduced 
into writing, and promised to consult about it with the other ministers at his 



250 FROM SHERLOCK'S DEATH TO THE REVOLUTION. 

adherents, in their letters written at this period, suggest one 
expedient after another, only to find themselves checkmated at 
every move. One result of these successive disappointments 
was to alienate what little sympathy this coterie of prominent 
Episcopal clergymen in America had ever had for free colonial 
institutions, and it had always been dubious enough. This fact 
crops out from time to time in the correspondence. " Is there 
then nothing more that can be done," writes Johnson to Seeker, 
December 20, 1763, " either for obtaining bishops or demolish- 
ing these pernicious charter governments, and reducing them 
all to one form in immediate dependence on the king ? I can- 
not help calling them pernicious, for they are indeed so as well 
for the best good of the people themselves as for the interests 
of true religion." : Apparently oblivious of the fact that the 
home government, which had never, since the end of the pre- 
vious century, taken any steps toward setting up a colonial 
episcopate, had as a government shown no indications of 
changing its policy, the pro-episcopal leaders attributed to it 
a disposition in their favor which was only restrained by the 
powerful political influence of the dissenters. Hence such 
utterances as those of Johnson, should they by any chance 

first leisure. Indeed," he continues, " I see not how Protestant Bishops can 
decently be refused us, as in all probability a Popish one will be allowed, 
by connivance at least, in Canada 11 (Beardsley, Life of Johnson, 280-283; 
Chandler, Life of Johnson, Appendix, 195-198 ; Hawkins, Missions of the 
Church of England, 393). 

1 The whole letter is printed in Beardsley Life of Johnson, 278-280. 
Writing again, September 20, 1764, he says: "With regard to the settling 
Episcopacy in these countries ... I know that all the Church people (except 
a few luke-warm persons and free-thinking pretenders to it, and sometimes 
attendants on it, but are really enemies to any establishment) are very desir- 
ous of it ; and that all moderate Dissenters, who, I believe, are the most 
numerous in the whole, and who know what is really designed, have little or 
no objection to it ; and that the number of such bitter zealots against it is 
comparatively few, and chiefly in these two governments [Massachusetts Bay 
and Connecticut], either such loose thinkers as Mayhew, who can scarcely be 
accounted better Christians than the Turks, or such furious bitter Calvinisti- 
cal enthusiasts as are really no more friends to monarchy than Episcopacy ; 
and against people of both these sorts Episcopacy is really necessary towards 
the better securing our dependence, as well as many other good political pur- 
poses ' {Ibid. 294-297). 



EPISCOPACY AND INDEPENDENCE. 25 I 

have become public, could have had no other effect than to 
prejudice their own prospects, as well as the cause of peace 
between the colonies and the mother country. 

Since the consideration of the subject thus far has shown how 
potent a factor the episcopal question was in forcing apart the 
two great branches of the English race, it seems almost incredi- 
ble that persons could have been found in those days who 
maintained that the timely establishment of an American epis- 
copate would have been one of the surest means of cementing 
them and of averting the separation which followed. Yet such 
was the fact. The view is most clearly set forth in a letter 
of Chandler to the secretary of the Society, January 15, 1766. 
Having pictured the political situation after the repeal of the 
Stamp Act, and commented on what he regards as the excesses 
of his countrymen, Chandler adds that "if the interest of the 
Church of England in America had been made a National Con- 
cern from the beginning, by this time a general submission in 
the Colonies to the Mother Country in everything not sinful 
might have been expected"; and he goes on to say that the 
home government is under great obligation to the Society for 
Propagating the Gospel for its efforts in assisting the church, 
and thus indirectly in securing the loyalty and fidelity of the 
colonists. 1 And this was no isolated or ephemeral notion. 
The same idea was expressed by the clergy of Massachusetts 
and Rhode Island in a convention opened at Boston, June 6, 
1 767,2 and as late as 1775, by Bishop Lowth, in a letter to 
Dr. Chandler. 3 But any careful study of the Puritan mind and 

1 This letter is cited more fully above, p. 113, note 1. 

2 They say : " We nattered ourselves that such an extensive territory as was 
heretofore possessed, and hath since been added to the British dominions by 
the late war, would certainly have been followed by some provision of this 
kind ; but especially the late popular tumults in these colonies, we imagined, 
would have strongly pointed out the necessity of such a step towards the 
uniting and attaching the colonies to the mother country, and have silenced 
every objection that could be raised against it 11 (Hawkins, Missions of the 
Church of England, 396-397, quoting from a report to the Society). 

3 He says : " If it shall please God that these unhappy tumults be quieted, 
and peace and order restored (which event I am sanguine enough to think 
is not far distant), we may reasonably hope that our governors will be 
taught, by experience, to have some regard to the Church of England in 



252 FROM SHERLOCK'S DEATH TO THE REVOLUTION. 

of previous colonial history makes it evident that such a step 
would probably have had the result of precipitating, rather than 
of retarding, the struggle which other circumstances made inevi- 
table sooner or later. 

The Stamp Act, however, spoiled what little chance the Epis- 
copalians had ever had of securing their long-cherished wish. 
The question was agitated, indeed, long afterward, till the near 
approach of the war and the accompanying excitement crowded 
it to one side ; but it is certain that, from this time on, though 
they did not publicly admit it, two of the prominent leaders in 
England and America began to despair. 1 

America'" (the Society's Digest, Appendix, 748). See also Chandler, Life of 
Johnson, Appendix, 205-208 ; Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 
401. 

1 In 1765 Johnson wrote to Seeker: "These people will stick at nothing 
to gain their point. It seems they make gentlemen believe that nineteen- 
twentieths of America are wholly against it [the introduction of bishops] 
themselves, and that it would make a more dangerous clamor and discontent 
than the Stamp Act itself, than which nothing can be more false. Had it 
been done last spring (when the dissenters themselves expected nothing 
else), and the Stamp-Act postponed till the next, it would have been but a 
nine-days' wonder, nor do I believe one-half of the people of America would 
have been much, if at all, uneasy about it" (Beardsley, Episcopal Church in 
Connecticut, i. 243). Seeker, in a letter to Johnson, July 31, 1776, gives 
additional testimony on this point. " It is very probable," he says, " that a 
Bishop or Bishops would have been quietly received in America before the 
Stamp-act was passed here. But it is certain that we could get no permission 
here to send one. Earnest and continued endeavors have been used with 
our successive ministers, but without obtaining more than promises to con- 
sider and confer about the matter, which promises have never been fulfilled. 
... Of late indeed it hath not been prudent to do anything unless at 
Quebec. And therefore the Address from the clergy of Connecticut, which 
arrived here in December last, and that from the clergy of New York and 
New Jersey, which arrived in January, have not been presented to the King. 
But he hath been acquainted with the prospect of them, and directed them to 
be postponed to a fitter time. In the mean while I wish the Bishop of Lon- 
don would take out a patent like Bishop Gibson's, only somewhat improved. 
For then he might appoint commissaries, and we might set up corresponding 
societies, as we have for some time intended, with those commissaries at their 
head. He appears unwilling, but I hope may be at length persuaded to it. 
... I have mentioned our late and former losses of missionaries to the 
King," says Seeker in his concluding paragraph, "as one argument for 



ENGLISH INTEREST IN THE EPISCOPAL QUESTION. 253 

William Samuel Johnson, at this time agent for the colony of 
Connecticut in England, 1 wrote to his father in the summer of 
1769 expressing his pleasure that the episcopal controversy 
was nearing its close, and adding that little attention was paid 
to it abroad. 2 But the publication of Seeker's Letter in this 
year, and the discussion which it stirred up, together with the 
contributions in the London Chronicle relative to this and the 
" American Whig " controversy, contradict Johnson's asser- 
tion. 3 Moreover, the continual pleas of the Anglican bishops 
in the annual sermons before the Society tended to keep alive 
an interest in the subject. 4 

Bishops. He is thoroughly sensible that the Episcopalians are his best 
friends in America. . . . Nor do I think there is any considerable increase 
of vehemence against Episcopacy here. Declaimers in newspapers are not 
much to be minded ; nor a few hot-headed men of higher rank." (For the 
full letter, see Beardsley, Life of 'Johnson ,302-304, and Chandler, Life of John- 
son, Appendix, 198-200; for extracts, Hawkins, Missions, 393-394). Seeker's 
closing burst of optimism does not, however, relieve the current of pessimism 
which pervades the letter. Bishop Lowth, in a letter to Johnson, May 3, 1768, 
is equally discouraging : " As to the great and important design of an Amer- 
ican Episcopate," he writes, " I see no immediate prospect of its being carried 
into execution. While the state of affairs, both with us and with you, con- 
tinues just as it now is, I am afraid we may not expect much to be done in 
it" (Chandler, Life of Johnson, Appendix, 201-203; extracts in Beardsley, 
Life of Johnson, 326). 

1 He held this office from 1766 to 1771. 

2 Beardsley, Life offohnson, 326. Johnson was continually writing letters 
with a view to dampen his father's enthusiasm. See, for example, his reply 
to a letter from his father, dated June 8, 1767, in which he says: "I doubt 
not Lord Shelburne said as you have been told. [Shelburne was then secre- 
tary of state for the southern department, and was in control of the entire 
colonial administration ; he is reported to have said that there was no need of 
an American episcopate.] I wish he was the only one amongst the ministers 
of that opinion. I fear it is universal, and the common sentiment of all the 
leaders of all parties, and that, perhaps, of all others in which they are most 
agreed. The i appeal ' you mention [Chandler's Appeal to the Public, which 
Johnson's father had proposed sending him as soon as it was printed, in the 
hope that it might convince Shelburne of his error], however well drawn up, 
will, I fear, have very little effect. Perhaps the more you stir about this mat- 
ter at present, the worse it will be " (Beardsley, Life of Johnson, 315-316). 

3 The subject is treated in detail in chapter viii. above. 

4 Some of them are enumerated above, pp. 191-192. 



254 FROM SHERLOCK'S DEATH TO THE REVOLUTION. 

In spite of the discouragements under which the clergy in 
America labored, and in spite of the fact that the hostility of 
the dissenters and the indifference of the home government 
were becoming more and more marked, they continued with 
unabated zeal their petitions to the authorities in England, both 
civil and ecclesiastical. 1 As the purpose of the colonists to 
separate from the mother country became more and more 
evident, the American Episcopal clergy sought to make use of 
the situation to secure the great end at which they had been so 
long aiming. We have already noted, in the correspondence 
of Johnson and the polemical writings of Chandler, how the 
monarchical tendency of the episcopal system was emphasized 
and contrasted with the republican character of independency. 
Going a step farther, some of the later petitions, which were 
directed to the English officers of state, strove to prove that 
the settlement of bishops in the colonies would be one way, if 
not the only way, to save them from revolt. 2 For example, in 

1 For example, May 29, 1771, the "voluntary convention" of the clergy of 
the Church of England in Connecticut petitioned to the Bishop of London 
and to the king through the Archbishop of Canterbury. They also asked the 
support of the Archbishop of York, the Board of Trade and Plantations, Lord 
Hillsborough, Lord North, the Bishop of Oxford, and the Bishop of Lichfield 
(Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Docwnents, ii. 176-177; Beardsley, 
Episcopal Church in Connecticut, i. 282-283). One extract from the petition 
to the Bishop of London is interesting for the curious threat which it conveys. 
The words are as follows : " Must it not be surprising, and really unaccount- 
able, that this Church should be denied the Episcopate she asks, which is so 
necessary to her well being . . . ? Must not such a disregard of the Church 
here be a great discouragement to her sons ? Will it not prevent the growth 
of the Church, and thereby operate to the disadvantage of religion and loyalty ? 
These, may it please your Lordship, not to mention the burthens we feel, are 
the evils we fear, should our request be denied. Should our application be 
judged unreasonable, we doubt not it will be remembered that necessity has 
no law" (Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Docu?nents, ii. 177). These 
utterances are in striking contrast to all the other professions of the pro- 
episcopal party, and indeed to its acts ; for its members were among the 
king's most loyal subjects, both before and after the date of this writing. 

2 Compare also the following paragraph, written in 1764, probably by 
Archbishop Drummond (see Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collec- 
tions, i. 136, note 1) : "It must be owned that the probable consequence [pf 
the establishment of a colonial episcopate] will be the increase of the Church 



POLITICAL ARGUMENTS OF THE EPISCOPAL PARTY. 255 

an " Address of a Committee of the Clergy of the Church of 
England in New York and New Jersey " to the colonial secre- 
tary, Lord Hillsborough, we find the following view : " The 
members of the national Church are from Principle and Inclina- 
tion, firmly attached to the Constitution. From them it must 
ever derive its surest support. We need not enter into a formal 
Proof of this, as the Reasons are sufficiently obvious. Omitting 
all other Arguments, that might be adduced, let past Experience 
decide. Independency in Religion will naturally produce Repub- 
licans in the State ; and from their Principles, too prevalent al- 
ready, the greatest Evils may justly be apprehended. The Church 
must inevitably decrease in the Colonies, if bishops are not sent 
to relieve its Necessities ; and the Dissenters will in Time gain 
an entire Ascendancy. How far it may be consistent with good 
Policy and the Safety of the State to permit this, we are will- 
ing that your Lordship should determine." 1 But the English 
officers of state, if they considered this argument at all, saw 
the fallacy of it, saw that in the situation in which they were 
placed further to disregard the will of the majority of the colo- 
nists was not the way to hold them in submission. Unwise in 
other respects, they were wise in this. 2 

This seems to be at least a plausible explanation of the dis- 
inclination on the part of the home government to meddle in 
the affair of an American episcopate. Many will say that its 
apathy was due to indifference. But in 1750 (the only date on 
which, so far as we have found, there was any complete expres- 

of England in America when the present disorder of it is removed ; but it 
should be considered that the Civil Government here [in England] may 
receive great support there from such increase, and that it is no less im- 
portant, even as a matter of State, that Ecclesiastics should be able to do 
good, than that they should not be able to do harm " (" Thoughts upon the 
Present State of the Church of England in America," Ibid. 162). 

*New York, October 12, 1771, New Jersey Archives, x. 309-313. "By 
order of the clergy " it was signed by the following committee of four : Sam- 
uel Auchmuty, Thomas Bradbury Chandler, John Ogilvie, and Charles Inglis, 
and was taken to' England by Dr. Myles Cooper, president of King's College, 
New York City. 

2 As a public newspaper writer truly said, " There are dissentions enough 
already in America. Our governors want not to increase, but to pacify them " 
(Loudon Chronicle, February 6, 1 769) . 



256 FROM SHERLOCK'S DEATH TO THE REVOLUTION. 

sion of opinion from the ministry on the subject) the govern- 
ment was far from indifferent ; on the contrary, it entertained 
grave apprehensions of the consequences which such a step 
would involve, and made strenuous efforts to keep the question 
out of public politics. 1 In this it was, for the time being, suc- 
cessful. When the question came up again, more than a decade 
later, new circumstances had arisen to complicate the situation. 
The ministers must then have considered the matter, even if only 
in a cursory way ; in fact, we have some slight evidence that 
they did ; 2 and in letting it drop they were probably actuated 
by reasons of policy. Undoubtedly the great pressure brought 
to bear on them by the influential dissenters contributed not a 
little to this result ; for enough has already been said about the 
storm which the bare apprehension of an American episcopate 
raised both in the colonies and in England, 3 to show that the 
opponents of the plan did not confine themselves to mere idle 
raging, but made systematic efforts through such of the English 
dissenters as had the ear of the government, to prevent the 
latter from giving any aid or countenance to the project. 4 It 
was to this interference that the leaders among the pro-episco- 
pal party attributed their defeat. 5 

1 See above, p. 116 ff. For the correspondence in full, see below, Appendix 
A, No. xi. 

2 For example, March 30, 1767, in reply to an invitation from the Duke of 
Newcastle to call at Newcastle House, Archbishop Seeker writes, "I am 
engaged by Appointment to talk with Lord Shelburne about the wonderful 
State of our ecclesiastical Affairs in America, at half an Hour after Eleven 
on Wednesday " {Newcastle Papers, Home Series, 32980, f. 444) . 

3 See above, chs. vi. vii. viii. One other striking instance, coming from an 
extreme Southern colony, may be added. Mr. Martyn, writing to the Bishop of 
London from South Carolina, October 20, 1765, says, " If I may form a Judg- 
ment from that present prevailing turbulent Spirit which like an epidemick 
disorder seems everywhere to diffuse itself through this and the other Colo- 
nies, I can venture to affirm that it would be as unsafe for an American Bishop 
(if such should be appointed) to come hither, as it is at present for a Distrib- 
utor of the Stamps" {Fidham MSS.). 

4 See above, ch. x. Cf. Bishop William White, Memoirs of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, 50. 

5 See, for example, Johnson to Camm : " We have been informed from 
home that our adversaries, who seem to have much influence with the ministry, 
endeavor, and with too much success, to make it believed that nineteen twen- 



THE ATTITUDE OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT 2$? 

In view of these facts, English statesmen saw that they had 
nothing to gain and everything to lose by involving themselves 
in the episcopal question. They knew that bishops with purely 
spiritual functions settled here would avail them little, and would 
arouse fully as much odium as an out-and-out state establish- 
ment ; and, moreover, that the dreaded state establishment would 
be resisted in the colonies, not only by the Puritans, but by the 
major part of the Episcopalians themselves. 1 Some writers, as 

tieths of America are utterly against receiving Bishops, and that sending them, 
though only with spiritual powers, would cause more dangerous disturbances 
than the Stamp-act itself; insomuch that our most excellent Archbishop, who 
has been much engaged in this great affair, . . . has lately informed me that 
he has not been able to gain the attention of the ministry to it, though his 
Majesty is very kindly disposed to favor and promote it " (Beardsley, Life of 
Johnson, 324-325). In one of his many letters to Johnson, Seeker said: 
" We must wait for more favorable times, which I think it will contribute not 
a little to bring in, if the ministers of our Church in America, by friendly con- 
verse with the principal dissenters, can satisfy them that nothing more is in- 
tended or desired than that our church may enjoy the full benefit of its own 
institutions, as all others do. For so long as they are uneasy and remon- 
strate, regard will be paid to them and their friends here by our ministers 
of state " (Protestant Episcopal Historical Society, Collections, i. 146, note 
3). The following testimony is from one of the leading advocates for an 
American episcopate : " From him I first learned the true reason of the 
Bishop of London being opposed and defeated in his scheme of sending us 
bishops. It seems that the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Pelham, and Mr. Onslow 
can have the interest and votes of the whole body of the dissenters upon con- 
dition of their befriending them, and by their influence on those persons the 
ministry was brought to oppose it" (Chandler to Johnson, Ibid?). May 19, 
1766, the Reverend Hugh Neill of Oxford wrote an interesting letter on the 
same subject (see the Society's Digest, 35). 

1 William Samuel Johnson, in reply to a letter from Governor Trumbull 
asking what had been done in England as to American bishops, expresses the 
sentiments of many of his fellow-believers. " It is not intended, at present," 
he says, " to send any Bishops into the American colonies ; had it been, I 
certainly should have acquainted you with it. And should it be done at all, 
you may be assured it will be done in such a manner as in no degree to preju- 
dice, nor, if possible, even give the least offence to any denomination of Prot- 
estants. It has indeed been merely a religious, in no respect a political, 
scheme. . . . More than this would be thought rather disadvantageous than 
beneficial, and I assure you would be opposed by no ?nan with more zeal than 
myself even as a friend to the Church of England. Nay, I have the strongest 
grounds to assure you that more would not be accepted by those who under- 

17 



258 FROM SHERLOCK'S DEATH TO THE REVOLUTION. 

we have seen, maintained that native bishops would have created 
a bond of union between the colonies and the mother country 
which might have averted the war for independence ; but such 
a theory is untenable, and was so regarded by those in author- 
ity at that time. Though episcopacy, once established, might 
have strengthened the arm of the English executive here, yet 
the advantages did not seem alluring enough to tempt it. 
Hence, owing to the cautiousness of the Englishmen who had 
control of affairs, the introduction of bishops was not one of the 
final causes of separation from the mother country, though the 
apprehension that such a danger excited in the colonies formed 
a striking, and not unimportant, phase of the struggle which 
led to that consummation. 

Before concluding this chapter it may not be amiss to notice 
a few scattered facts concerning the relations of the Bishop of 
London, or his representatives, with particular colonies. 1 

The little authority which Roger Price exercised as commis- 
sary of New England ceased with the expiration of his com- 
mission at the death of Bishop Gibson, and from this time the 
Episcopal churches of the province remained without any 
resident authoritative head. In spite of the efforts of the 
clergy, 2 no attempt was made to supply the vacancy. 

Finally, the clergy, realizing that they could obtain no help 
from the authorities at home, determined to take the matter into 
their own hands. Accordingly, while assembled at Dr. Cutler's 
funeral in 1765, they agreed to have "an annual convention in 
Boston, to promote mutual love and harmony amongst ourselves, 
and to assist each other with advice in difficult cases." Their 

stand and wish well to the design, were it even offered " (Beardsley, Episcopal 
Church in Co7inecticut, i. 265-266) . 

1 Owing to the points of more general interest involved, the relations with 
North Carolina were considered at the beginning of the chapter. 

2 See, for example, Henry Caner to Archbishop Seeker, January 7, 1763, 
"We are a Rope of Sand, 1 ' he says; "there is no union, no authority among 
us ; we cannot even summon a Convention for united Counsell and advice, 
while the Dissenting Ministers have their Monthly, Quarterly, and Annual 
Associations, Conventions, &c, to advise, assist, and support each other in 
many Measures which they shall think proper to enter into " (Perry, Historical 
Collections, iii. Massachusetts, 489-491). 



CHURCH AFFAIRS IN MASSACHUSETTS. 259 

first meeting took place June 1, 1766. Dr. Caner, who was 
chosen moderator and secretary, delivered an address in King's 
Chapel, in which, among other things, he informed his assem- 
bled brethren that their convention had the approval of the 
Bishop of London. Following the service was a dinner, at 
which the governor was present. "We . . . made something 
of an appearance for this Country," says Dr. William McGil- 
christ in his account, "when we walked together in our Gowns 
and Cassocks." 1 These meetings, which were held annually 
for some years, served to make the clergy acquainted with one 
another, if they did nothing more. 

The rest of the history of ecclesiastical affairs in Massachu- 
setts during this period has to do mainly with the opposition to 
the establishment of an American episcopate. Indications of this 
resistance are found not only in the share which the people of 
the province took in the pamphlet and newspaper wars already 
described, but also in the action of the public authorities. One 
example of such official action has been seen in the letter sent, 
January 12, 1768, by the Massachusetts House of Representa- 
tives to its agent in London, Dennis de Berdt, requesting that 
he would " strenuously oppose " the introduction of bishops. 2 
Throughout these years there were many evidences of such 
forebodings, expressed both officially and unofficially. 3 When 
the British evacuated Boston, March 17, 1776, most of the 
Episcopal clergy in Massachusetts left the colony, and those 
who remained were forced, at least seemingly, to go over to the 

1 Letter to the secretary of the Society. June 27, 1766 (Perry, Historical 
Collections, iii. (Massachusetts) 524). 

2 See above, p. 235, note 2, where an extract from the letter is cited. 

3 For example, Dr. Andrew Eliot wrote to Thomas Hollis in London, 
January 5, 1768, " The people of New England are greatly alarmed ; the arrival 
of a Bishop would raise them as much as any one thing" (Massachusetts 
Historical Society, Collections, 4th Series, iv. 422; Mellen Chamberlain, John 
Adams, 31). Again, in 1772, the Boston Committee of Correspondence, in a 
report made in Faneuil Hall on the rights of the colonists, said, " Various 
attempts . . . have been made, and are now made, to establish an American 
Episcopate, 1 ' adding as its opinion that " no power on earth can justly give 
either temporal or spiritual jurisdiction within this province, except the great 
and general court " (J. W. Thornton, Pulpit of the American Revolution, 192 ; 
Chamberlain,/*?^ Adams, 31). 



260 FROM SHERLOCK'S DEATH TO THE REVOLUTION. 

patriotic side. In the following year an act was passed " for- 
bidding all expressions in preaching and praying that may 
discountenance the people's support of the independency of 
these colonies on the British Empire on the Penalty of ^50." 1 
From this time to the close of the Revolution, the Episcopal 
Church plays no important role in New England history. 

At the time when the opposition to an American episcopate 
was at its height, an interesting project was devised by the royal 
governor of New Hampshire for establishing the Church of 
England in his province. His scheme is thus outlined in a 
letter to a friend : " My dear Sir, I cordially venerate the 
Church of England and hope to see it universal in this Prov- 
ince, whose lasting welfare I have much and sincerely at heart. 
Whatever is done in this proposed Plan must be without parade 
or Show and under powerful Direction, or the whole Matter will 
be injured rather than served ; and I should think that if the 
Bishop of London should wish well to this Scheme, from being 
convinced of its utility and speedy practibility, His Lordship 
could represent it to His Majesty so effectually as to obtain the 
Chaplainship, 2 which would be so eminently advantageous to 
the cause of our Religion, and exceedingly dignify and facilitate 
the Political Administration of the Government, both of them 
you are sensible, Sir, at this Time requiring all the care and 
prudence they can have." 3 Although this plan was never car- 
ried out, it is interesting as another indication of the close con- 
nection which existed in the minds of many people at that time 
between episcopal and monarchical forms of government. 

In the various colonies, many questions of ordinary church 
administration, as they came up for solution, were, as hereto- 
fore, referred to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of 
London, and the Society for Propagating the Gospel ; but 
throughout the country the clergy were complaining of the lack 

1 From an address by the Reverend William Clark to his congregation at 
Dedham, March, 1777. See Perry, Historical Collections, iii. (Massachusetts) 
591-592. 

2 The governor regarded a royal chaplain as necessary for the furtherance 
of his project. 

3 Governor John Wentworth to Joseph Harrison, September 24, 1769, 
Fulham MSS. 



THE EPISCOPAL QUESTION' IN MARYLAND. 261 

of efficient organization of ecclesiastical government. Most of 
these complaints, however, came from the Northern and Middle 
colonies, where the remedy almost invariably suggested was the 
settlement of resident bishops. In the Southern colonies, on 
the other hand, at least in Virginia and Maryland, there was, if 
not a general, at least a very decided, opposition to such an 
establishment. The course of events in Virginia has been 
described at some length in a previous chapter. An attempt to 
introduce bishops into Maryland called up a like resistance. 
When eight of the clergy drew up a petition to be presented to 
the governor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of 
London, and Lord Baltimore, the governor intervened, refusing 
to accept the petition as the act of the whole body of clergy in 
the province. He informed the petitioners, however, that in 
view of the many and important considerations involved, he 
would lay the matter before the House of Representatives. 
This was hardly welcome news to the authors of the petition, for 
the reason that they had alluded to the legislative body in rather 
unflattering terms. After some deliberation the governor and 
assembly refused to consent to the sending of the petition to 
England ; but in spite of this prohibition it was sent, 1 and as a 
result Lord Baltimore instructed Governor Eden to prevent the 
clergy from assembling thenceforth on any occasion whatever. 2 
As heretofore in this province, there continued to be many 
complaints of the bad character of the clergy and of the en- 
croachments and tyranny of the proprietary, who claimed the 
sole right of patronage and often caused clergymen unpleasant 
to the people to be inducted. 3 With a view to amending and 
regulating the conduct of the clergy, the assembly drafted an 

1 Compare a letter from the " Convention of Delegates from the Synod of 
New York and Philadelphia and from the Associations of Connecticut " to the 
"Dissenting committee" of London, Minutes of the Convention, 32-34. 

2 Hawks {Ecclesiastical Contributions, ii. Maryland, 256) gives the date of 
their petition as 1770; but either the petition was earlier or the prohibition 
of Lord Baltimore was not, as Hawks conjectures, in consequence thereof, for 
the Reverend T. J. Claggett, writing September 20, 1769, speaks of the prohi- 
bition as already issued (see Perry, Historical Collections, iv. Maryland, 340- 

341). 

3 See Chandler to Bishop Terrick, October 21, 1767, Ibid. 334-335. 



262 FROM SHERLOCK'S DEATH TO THE REVOLUTION. 

act providing " That after such a day the Governor, 3 Clergy- 
men, & 3 Laymen should be constituted a spiritual court. 
That any Clergy man that was guilty of any acts or act of im- 
morality, or should be 30 days absent from his Parish at one 
time, should be suspended from preaching and be deprived of 
his living." Though no one disputed the need of some means 
of regulating the lives of irregular clergymen, the clerical order, 
as a whole, become alarmed at the prospect of such a presby- 
terian form of government with lay elders, and, moreover, con- 
sidered it subversive of the canons of the church, which gave to 
the bishop alone power to pass sentence in such cases. Hence 
they raised a strong opposition to the measure, and, though the 
bill passed the upper and lower house of assembly, Governor 
Sharpe refused to sign it, alleging that he had no instructions 
authorizing him in such a case. 1 This was apparently the last 
attempt on the part of the Maryland assembly, before the Revo- 
lution, to assume the authority of the Bishop of London in eccle- 
siastical concerns. 

Little more remains to be said. Ecclesiastical questions lost 
their significance as those of a civil nature became more press- 
ing. The agitation kept growing, till the colonists secured 
what for a period of more than one hundred and fifty years 
they had been striving to attain, independence in all relations, 
religious as well as secular. The treaty of 1783, which acknowl- 
edged the United States as a sovereign and independent nation, 
put an end to all official connection between the Church of 
England establishment and her trans-Atlantic offspring. If the 
Episcopal Church was to continue to exist in the new nation, 
it must, like all other institutions of the land, be self-governing. 
If it was to have bishops, it must have them independent of all 
foreign control. 

1 See the Reverend Hugh Neill to Bishop Terrick, September 20, 1768, in 
Perry, Historical Collections, iv. (Maryland) 337-338. Neill urges the bishop 
to obtain some instruction to prevent in the future any such encroachment on 
the integrity of the establishment. The story is told also in an anonymous 
letter, and in one from the Reverend T. J. Claggett to Bishop Terrick, 
September 20, 1769 {Ibid. 339-341). 



CHAPTER XII. 

AFTER THE REVOLUTION: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN 
AMERICAN EPISCOPATE. 1 

One result of the American Revolution was to break off all 
authoritative connection between the Church of England estab- 
lishment and the Episcopal Church in this country, to abolish 
the colonial jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, and to put 
an end to any further prospect of obtaining from the English 
government the settlement of an American colonial episco- 
pate as a branch of the Anglican hierarchy. Apparently, the 
last instance in which the Bishop of London, as such, was 
identified with the Episcopal Church here was an act, passed 
in 1784, "to impower the Bishop of London for the time being, 
or any other bishop to be by him appointed, to admit to the 
order of deacon or priest, persons being subjects or citizens of 
countries out of his Majesty's dominions, without requiring 
them to take the oath of allegiance as appointed by law." 2 
This act was passed as an expedient to get over a very obvious 
difficulty brought about by the changed relations between the 
two countries. Early in the year two candidates from the 
United States had gone to England for holy orders, and had 
been refused because, as American citizens, they could not take 
the oath of allegiance to the British crown. In their perplexity 
they appealed to their influential countryman, Benjamin Frank- 
lin, then in Paris. Although willing, he hardly knew how to 
help them, as he showed by going first to the French bishops, 

1 The account of the events treated of in this chapter is drawn chiefly from 
the unpublished letter books of Bishops Seabury, White, and Parker, most of 
which are either printed or cited in Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church 
Docwnents, ii. 210 ff. The story is also told in Beardsley, Life of Seabury, 
chs. xi.-xxi. and in his Episcopal Church in Connecticut, i. ch. xxvi. if. 

2 Statute 24 George III. c. 35. 



264 AFTER THE REVOLUTION. 

and finally to the pope's nuncio. 1 As a temporary shift, the 
passage of the above-named act was secured, but it was of 
necessity only an expedient for the time being until a more 
satisfactory plan could be devised. Its chief defect was that it 
made no provision for the consecration of American bishops ; 
and plainly, if the American Episcopal Church was to grow, 
there must be resident bishops vested with authority to ordain, 
confirm, and administer ecclesiastical affairs. The United States 
of America could have no place for a church which was not 
essentially American in its government and tendencies. How 
to continue the traditions of the Church of England, and at the 
same time to meet this end, was the problem upon the settle- 
ment of which the church's future here was dependent. Mean- 
while, a plan had been set on foot which aimed to solve the 
difficulty, and it will be the purpose of this chapter to trace 
the inception, progress, and final success of that plan. 

The first step toward obtaining bishops for America was 
taken in 1783, when the ten missionaries of the Society for 
Propagating the Gospel, still remaining in Connecticut, as- 
sembled, and chose the Reverend Samuel Seabury to go to 
England for episcopal consecration. 2 Into all the negotiations 
concerning Seabury, which went on between the New York 
and Connecticut clergy on the one hand and the Archbishop of 
York 3 on the other, and into all Seabury's conferences with 
the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, and the Bishop of 
London, it will not be necessary to enter here. 4 Suffice it to 
say that, failing to accomplish anything in England, Seabury 

1 Hawkins, Missions of the Church of England, 402-403, citing Hoare, 
Memoirs of Granville Sharp, 215. 

2 Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Docmnents, ii. 211. The details 
of the proceedings may be found in the letters of the Reverend Daniel Fogg, 
rector of Pomfret, Connecticut, to the Reverend Samuel Parker of Boston, 
Ibid. 212-213, citing Bishop Parker's correspondence. 

3 Who acted as primate during a brief vacancy of the see of Canterbury. 

4 They are considered at length in the Churchman's Magazine (1806), iii. 
and in Hawks and Perry, Journals of the General Conventions of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, 1 785-1 853, i. ; also in Bishop White's Memoirs (Appendix 
and illustrative documents). For a fuller discussion of the sources, see Hawks 
and Perry, Connecticut Church Documents, ii. 



SEABURY CONSECRATED BY THE NON-JURORS. 265 

turned at last to the Scotch non-juring bishops for aid. 1 This 
idea did not originate with him, or, indeed, with any American, 
but with an Englishman ; for the subject was first broached by 
Dr. George Berkeley, son of the famous Bishop of Cloyne, in 
a letter to the Reverend John Skinner, later coadjutor to the 
non-juring primus of Scotland. Skinner finally gave his ap- 
proval to the plan, and soon after gained the acquiescence of 
his superior. With the ice thus broken, Seabury's request for 
consecration was readily granted, and on November 14, 1784, 
the ceremony was performed by Robert Kilgour, primus and 
Bishop of Aberdeen, John Skinner, his coadjutor, and Arthur 
Petrie, Bishop of Ross and Moray. 2 

Seabury's reasons for applying for the Scottish consecration 
are stated at length by him in a letter of February 27, 1785, to 
the Reverend Dr. William Morice, secretary of the Society. 
" Finding," he says, " at the end of the last Session of Parlia- 
ment that no permission was given for consecrating a Bishop 
for Connecticutt or any of the American States, in the Act 
enabling the Lord Bishop of London to ordain foreign candi- 
dates for Deacon's or Priest's orders ; and understanding that a 
requisition or at least a formal acquiescence of Congress, or 
of the supreme authority in some particular State, would be 
expected before such permission would be granted ; and that a 
diocese must be formed, and a stated revenue appointed for the 
Bishop, previously to his consecration, I absolutely despaired 
of ever seeing such a measure succeed in England. . . . The 
reasons why this step [his consecration] should be taken imme- 
diately," he continues, " appeared ... to me to be very strong. 

1 An account of the negotiations with the Scottish bishops may be found 
in Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Documents, ii. 239-240, and Wilber- 
force, Protestant Episcopal Church, 199-212. 

2 See Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Documents, ii. 247-252, citing 
Scottish Ecclesiastical Journal, October 16, 1851, which quotes from the 
" Minute Book of the College of Bishops in Scotland," where may be found 
the original records of the consecration, together with the concordat between 
the Episcopal churches of Scotland and Connecticut, and the letter from the 
Scottish bishops to the Connecticut clergy. For Seabury's own account of 
the consecration, see in his letter book a letter of December 3, 1784, to the 
Reverend Jonathan Boucher. 



266 AFTER THE REVOLUTION". 

Before I left America a disposition to run into irregular prac- 
tices had showed itself ; for some had proposed to apply to the 
Moravian, some to the Swedish Bishops, for ordination ; and a 
pamphlet had been published at Philadelphia urging the appoint- 
ment of a number of Presbyters and Laymen to ordain Ministers 
for the Episcopal Church. Necessity was pleaded as the foun- 
dation of all these schemes ; and this plea could be effectually 
silenced only by having a resident Bishop in America." * 

There is no need to consider all the opposition which Bishop 
Seabury had to encounter on his return to his native land. It 
will be sufficient to point out that, owing to the influence of the 
Reverend Samuel Provoost of New York, who, as an ardent 
patriot, could not but oppose by every means in his power the 
loyalist Seabury, an alienation had grown up between the 
Episcopal clergy of New England and those of the Middle 
and Southern states. The former recognized Seabury as 
bishop, and hence the validity of the Scottish succession ; 2 the 
latter, rejecting both, sought to obtain a bishop through the 
English line, as well as a revision of the Book of Common 
Prayer. 3 Finally the English government was prevailed upon 
to grant to its American brethren in the faith the Anglican 
Episcopal succession. To this end an act was passed by Par- 
liament authorizing either of the two archbishops, together with 
such of the bishops as they might desire to call as their assist- 
ants, to consecrate bishops for America. 4 

As soon as the news reached this country, Dr. Samuel Pro- 
voost of New York and Dr. William White of Pennsylvania 

1 Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Docu?nents, ii. 256-259. 

2 This matter of orders was regarded as a crucial question on both sides of 
the water. October 29, 1785, nearly a year after Seabury's consecration, 
Granville Sharp, in a letter to Benjamin Franklin, expressed his doubts as to 
the validity of orders derived through non-juring bishops, and his preference 
for a consecration by English bishops. This, he thought, might be secured 
if the candidates would bring the proper testimonials. See Massachusetts 
Historical Society, Collections, 1st Series, iii. 162-164. 

3 Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Documents, ii. 292-293. 

4 Statute 26 George III. (1786), c. 84. See Makower, Constitutional His- 
tory and Constitution of the Church of England, 142. Cf. the Reverend Ben- 
jamin Moore to the Reverend Samuel Parker, New York, November 4, 1786, 
in Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Documents, ii. 305. 



THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH ESTABLISHED. 267 

went to England, 1 where they were consecrated, February 4, 
1787, by John Moore, Archbishop of Canterbury, William 
Markham, Archbishop of York, Charles Moss, Bishop of Bath 
and Wells, and John Hinchcliffe, Bishop of Peterborough. 2 
Some two years after their return to America the differences 
existing between them and Bishop Seabury, and hence those 
of their respective followings in the churches of the Middle and 
Southern States, and of New England were amicably adjusted; 
and Bishop Seabury was invited to attend the " General Conven- 
tion of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States," 
which opened at Philadelphia, September 29, 1789. Three bish- 
ops, the number required by the canons of the Anglican church 
for the perpetuation of its holy orders, had now been obtained ; 
and the House of Bishops was finally organized, with Bishop 
Seabury as its first president. 3 

With the establishment of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the United States of America, under the supervision of its own 

1 See Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Documents, ii. 305. 

2 Perceval, Apostolical Succession, Appendix, 121. For an account of the 
consecration of Provoost and White, see the fourth in a series of articles from 
the Episcopal Magazine, printed in the Pennsylvania Register (June 27, 1829), 
iii. 405-406. The series is entitled " A Narrative of the Organization and of 
the Early Measures of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States." 

3 Hawks and Perry, Connecticut Church Documents, ii. 359. On September 
19, 1790, James Madison was consecrated Bishop of Virginia by John Moore, 
Archbishop of Canterbury, Beilby Porteus, Bishop of London, and John 
Thomas, Bishop of Rochester (Perceval, Apostolic Succession, 121). This 
gave the United States three bishops according to the English succession, a 
sufficient number to consecrate any one who should question the validity of 
the Scottish line. About this time, however, the English church restored the 
Scottish non-juring bishops to their position as an integral part of the Anglican 
hierarchy. 

One cause of regret in the formation of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the United States was the refusal of the Methodists to join in its organization. 
Their secession from the Church of England system began in 1784, when 
Lowth, then Bishop of London, refused Wesley's request to ordain at least two 
priests to administer the sacrament to the American Methodists. Coke and 
Asbury, whom Wesley, in spite of Lowth, sent out as "superintendents," 
assumed the functions of bishops, and laid the foundations upon which the 
structure now known as the American Methodist Episcopal Church was 
reared. See McConnell, American Episcopal Church, 1 70-1 71, citing Abel 
Stevens, History of American Methodism. 



268 AFTER THE REVOLUTION. 

bishops, the connection of the Bishop of London with this coun- 
try ceased. Likewise, all attempts to establish resident bishops 
subject to the authority of the Church of England came to an 
end. It may not be out of place to say a word or two, by way 
of conclusion, concerning these two lines of development as 
treated in the preceding chapters. The first may be dismissed 
with a brief summary. Originating, probably, with a step 
instigated by Laud in the rounding out of the Stuart-Laudian 
policy of uniting church and state, the Bishop of London's 
colonial authority, in America at least, faded into oblivion dur- 
ing the Commonwealth and the Protectorate. Reviving again 
with the Restoration, under the energetic administration of 
Henry Compton, it obtained a direct legal recognition during 
the lifetime of Bishop Gibson, under whom it reached its high- 
est development. Receiving a blow from Bishop Sherlock from 
which it never recovered, it nevertheless did not become com- 
pletely extinct until the close of the Revolution. 

As regards the second point, almost from the time when the 
authority of the Bishop of London was extended to include the 
plantations, efforts were made to introduce a native episcopate 
to take over his American jurisdiction. This plan was pushed 
with more or less constancy from its inception in the days of 
Laud to the outbreak of the War of Independence. At first it 
was a matter of purely spiritual concern, but with the beginning 
of the second half of the eighteenth century it became almost 
inextricably involved in the political history of the period. There 
are innumerable evidences of the public interest which the ques- 
tion excited during the years just preceding the Revolution. 
One may point, for example, to the newspaper controversy of 
1 768-1 769; to the active part which such prominent men as 
William Livingston, John Dickinson, and Roger Sherman took 
in the agitation ; and, finally, to the fact that John Adams, while 
not concerned in the affair at the time, expressed, later in life, 
a firm conviction of the importance of the episcopal question in 
the final epoch of our colonial history. 

In view of these facts, some writers have gone so far as to 
argue that the attempt to impose Anglican bishops on the colo- 
nies had an important effect in bringing about the separation 



MELLEN CHAMBERLAIN'S THEORY. 269 

from Great Britain. This theory has been most strongly advo- 
cated by Mellen Chamberlain, in an address on John Adams 
delivered before the Webster Historical Society. 1 One or two 
of the extracts which he cites in support of his opinion are 
worthy of consideration. The first is from the Reverend Jona- 
than Boucher's View of the Causes and Consequences of the 
American Revolution, published in London in 1797. Boucher 
says : " That the American opposition to episcopacy was at all 
connected with that still more serious one so soon afterwards 
set up against civil government was not indeed generally appar- 
ent at the time [in Virginia] ; but it is now [1797] indisputable, 
as it also is that the former contributed not a little to render the 
latter successful. As therefore this controversy was clearly one 
great cause that led to the revolution, the view of it here given, 
it is hoped, will not be deemed wholly uninteresting." 2 Another 
significant quotation is from the letter of John Adams to Dr. 
Jedidiah Morse, written December 2, 1815. "Where," he asks, 
" is the man to be found at this day, when we see Methodistical 
bishops, bishops of the Church of England, and bishops, arch- 
bishops, and Jesuits of the church of Rome, with indifference, 
who will believe that the apprehension of Episcopacy contributed 
fifty years ago as much as any other cause, to arouse the atten- 
tion, not only of the inquiring mind, but of the common people, 
and urge them to close thinking on the constitutional authority 
of parliament over the colonies ? This, nevertheless, was a fact 
as certain as any in the history of North America. The objec- 
tion was not merely to the office of a bishop, though even that 
was dreaded, but to the authority of parliament, on which it 
must be founded ... if parliament can erect dioceses and 
appoint bishops, they may introduce the whole hierarchy, estab- 
lish tithes, forbid marriages and funerals, establish religions, for- 
bid dissenters." 3 These references, supplemented by additional 

1 Afterward reprinted in his John Adams and Other Essays (1898). 

2 View, 1 50 ; quoted by Chamberlain (John Adams') 37, and, among others, 
by Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 425, note 4. 

3 John Adams, Works, x. 185; quoted by Chamberlain, John Adams, 25, 
note. In the same note, Chamberlain quotes an earlier utterance of Adams 
from Novanglus, February 13, 1775 : " It is true that the people of this country 



2;o AFTER THE REVOLUTION-. 

citations, have also been made use of by at least two other 
writers, 1 neither of whom, however, has drawn such definite and 
far-reaching conclusions from them as Chamberlain has. An- 
other writer, without giving any authority for his statement, 
says : " The necessities of the Church, no less than those of the 
State, demanded the Declaration of Independence and freedom 
from the Mother Country. Religious freedom was to come as 
the result of political independence. Its progress was slow 
before the Revolution . . . But had the New England colo- 
nies granted entire toleration, the Church of England would 
have been fastened upon them. To prevent this was one 
of the underlying reasons for the Declaration of July 4, 
1776." 2 

Undoubtedly, there is something to be said in favor of the 
argument that the attempt to introduce bishops, and the opposi- 
tion thereby excited, formed one of the causes of the Revolution. 
There can be no doubt that the opposition to bishops was based 
mainly on political grounds : this fact is indicated by the ab- 
sence of any resistance to the establishment of an episcopate 
after the Revolution. 3 Moreover, fear and hatred of the Church 

in general, and of this province in special, have an hereditary apprehension of 
and aversion to lordships, temporal and spiritual. Their ancestors fled to this 
wilderness to avoid them ; they suffered sufficiently under them in England. 
And there are few of the present generation who have not been warned of 
the danger of them by their fathers or grandfathers, and enjoined to oppose 
them." 

1 See Perry, American Episcopal Church, i. 425, where he cites the extract 
from Boucher, and also that from Adams, taking it from Morse's Annals, 197- 
203. These references are also used in the " General Remarks " of the editors 
of the Minutes of the Convention of Delegates (Hartford, 1843), Appendix, 64. 
The Society for Propagating the Gospel, in its Digest, 747, advocates the 
same view as the authors mentioned above, and refers for authority to Perry, 
American Episcopal Church, i. 408, 410, 425, and to Chandler, Life offohnson, 
177. An interesting citation may be found in Perry, American Episcopal 
Church, i. 412, from a speech by Lord Chatham. "Divided as they are," he 
says, " into a thousand forms of policy and religion, there is one point on 
which they all agree : they equally detest the pageantry of a king, and the 
supercilious hypocracy of a bishop." 

2 H. B. Smith, History of the Church of Christ, in Chronological Tables, 70. 

3 " The sudden collapse of all such opposition after the Revolution had dis- 
severed the colonies from the motherland shows that the popular objection to 



CONCLUSION. 271 

of England and all its appendages were existent in the colonies 
from their first foundation ; and the fact that the majority of 
the colonists professed a religion hostile, or at least alien, to the 
Anglican establishment offered good ground for nourishing 
the seeds of political discontent. But, admitting all this, it 
must be apparent to one who has followed carefully the course 
of events, religious and political, during the eighteenth century, 
that the strained relations which heralded the approach of the 
War of Independence strengthened the opposition to episcopacy, 
rather than that religious differences were a prime moving 
cause of political alienation. The religious controversies, ac- 
centuated and drawn into more public prominence, though 
not first called into being, by the existing political situation, 
had a reactionary effect, in that, once in full swing, they 
contributed, in combination with other causes, to embitter 
the minds of the patriots and thus to accelerate the impend- 
ing crisis. 1 

Those, then, who argue that the episcopal question was a 
cause of the Revolution, if they mean, an impelling cause, are 
exposed to the criticism of misconstruing evidence and of con- 

the introduction of bishops was chiefly political " (Tiffany, Protestant Episco- 
pal Church, 277) . Or, to quote one who lived almost in the midst of the 
events which he described, and who was hostile to the Church of England : 
" The friends of the Episcopate, notwithstanding all the zeal and exertions 
which they employed in its behalf, were continually disappointed by difficul- 
ties and delay, until the Revolution ; which, by establishing the Independence 
of the United States, effectually precluded the dangers apprehended from 
their scheme, removed the fears of their opponents, and terminated the con- 
troversy " (Miller, Memoirs of John Rodger s, 186). 

x Sir William Johnson, writing to the Society, December 10, 1768. doubts 
the reality of the fear concerning the introduction of bishops. " We cannot 
have a clergy here," he says, " without an Episcopate ; and this want has oc- 
casioned many to embrace other persuasions, and will oblige greater numbers 
to follow their example, of which the dissenters are very sensible ; and by pre- 
tended fears of an episcopal power, as well as by magnifying their own num- 
bers and lessening ours, give it all possible opposition 1 ' (cited in Perry, 
American Episcopal Church, i. 418). This view, even if true, does not 
change the aspect of the question in the least ; for the important and essential 
thing is, not so much what actuated the dissenters in their opposition to epis- 
copacy, but the fact that they were really opposed to it. 



272 AFTER THE REVOLUTION. 

fusing cause and effect. Nevertheless, religious affairs were 
closely involved in the political questions of the time, and if 
the ecclesiastical causes of the Revolution were secondary and 
contributory rather than primary and impelling, certainly there 
was an ecclesiastical phase of pre- Revolutionary history of no 
little interest and importance. 



APPENDICES. 



APPENDIX A 

ILLUSTRATIVE DOCUMENTS. 

The majority of these documents are transcripts of manuscripts in the Fulham 
Library, the British Museum, and the Public Record Office, London. The remainder 
have already been printed, but are included here for the purpose of supplementing 
and elucidating the text. 

I. ORDER OF THE KING IN COUNCIL VESTING THE JURIS- 
DICTION OF THE CHURCHES OF DELPH AND HAMBURGH 
IN THE BISHOP OF LONDON. 

P. R. O., State Papers, Domestic Series, Charles I., No. 247 for October 

1-15, 1633. 

At Whitehall y e first of October 1633. 

Present. 

The King Most Excellent Ma". 6 
Lo Arch Bpp of Cant. Ea of Dorset 

Lo Keeper Ea of Bridgewater 

Lo Tresor Ea of Holland 

Lo Privy Seal Ea of Kelley 

Lo Marq 8 Hamilton Lo Cottington 

Lo Chamblain Mr Jus. Mr Sec. Coke 

Mf Sec. Windebank 

This day his Ma tie being present in Councell the pticuls following con- 
cerning y e Company of Merchant Adventurers and their Government in 
forreigne parts were fully debated at y e Board vizt 

1. The Scandell and prejudice arising by supporting & using a form 
of discipline in their Church at Delph ; — different from that of their 
mother Church here, of which they are members. 

2. Their opposing and rejecting of Mr. Misselden their Deputy 
Governor there. 

18 



274 APPENDIX A. 

3. The removing and translating of y e principall power and Govern- 
ment of y e said Trade from those forreigne parts and establishing y e same 
here. 

For y e first which concerns their Church Government. It was agreed 
upon y e voluntary Assent and Submission of said Company, not only of 
those here but of some authorized on y e behalf of those at Delph and 
Hamburgh now present before y e Board and upon other important 
reasons and considerations resolved & ordered that they should not 
hereafter receive or admit of any Minister into the said Churches in 
forreigne parts without his Ma ties knowledge and approbation of the 
person : And that y e Liturgy and Discipline now used in y e Church of 
England should be receaved and established there, And that in all things 
concerning their Church Government they should be under y e Jurisdic- 
tion of y e Lord Bpp of London as their Diocesan. For y e orderly doing 
whereof Mr Attorney General is hereby prayed and required to advise 
and direct such a cours as may be most essentiall. . . 

II. COMMISSION FOR REGULATING PLANTATIONS. — 1634. 

Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (Massachusetts Historical Society, 
Collections, 4th Series, iii. 456-460). For an account of the various texts of 
this commission, see above, p. 19, note 1. 

Charles by y e grace of God king of England, Scotland, France, 
and Ireland, Defender of y e Faith, &c. 

To the most Reve d father in Christ, our wellbeloved & faithful coun- 
sellor, William, by devine providence Archbishop of Counterbery, of all 
England Primate & Metropolitan ; Thomas Lord Coventry, Keeper of 
our Great Seale of England ; the most Reverente father in Christ our 
wellbeloved and most faithful Counselour, Richard, by devine provi- 
dence Archbishop of Yorke, Primate & Metropolitan ; our wellbeloved 
and most faithfull coussens & Counselours, Richard, Earle of Portland, 
our High Treasurer of England ; Henery, Earle of Manchester, Keeper 
of our Privie Seale ; Thomas, Earle of Arundalle & Surry, Earle Mar- 
shall of England ; Edward, Earle of Dorsett, Chamberline of our most 
dear Consorte, the Queene ; and our beloved & faithfull Counselours, 
Francis Lord Cottington, Counseler, [Chancellor ?] and Undertreasurour 
of our Eschequour ; S r : Thomas Edmonds, knight, Treasourer of our 
household ; S r : Henery Vane, Knight, Controuler of y e same household ; 
S r : John Cooke, Knight, one of our Privie Secretaries ; and Francis 
Windebanck, Knight, another of our Privie Secretaries, Greeting. 



COMMISSION FOR REGULATING PLANTATIONS, 1634. 275 

Whereas very many of our subjects, & of our late fathers of beloved 
memory, our sovereigne lord James, late King of England, by means of 
license royall, not only with desire of inlarging y e teritories of our em- 
pire, but cheefly out of a pius & religious affection, & desire of propa- 
gating y e gospell of our Lord Jesus Christ, with great industrie & expences 
have caused to be planted large Collonies of y e English nation, in diverse 
parts of y e world altogether unmanured, and voyd of inhabitants, or 
occupied of y e barbarous people that have no knowledg of divine wor- 
ship. We being willing to provid a remedy for y e tranquillity & quiet- 
ness of those people, and being very confidente of your faith & wisdom, 
justice & providente circomspection, have constituted you y e aforesaid 
Archbishop of Counterberie, Lord Keeper of y e Great Seale of England, 
y e Archbishop of Yorke, &c. and any 5. or more, of you, our Commis- 
sioners ; and to you, and any 5 . or more of you, we doe give and conTite 
power for y e govemente & saftie of y e said collonies, drawen or which, 
out of y e English nation into those parts hereafter, shall be drawne, to 
make lawes, constitutions, & ordinances, pertaining ether to y e publick 
state of these collonies, or y e private profite of them ; and concerning 
y e lands, goods, debts, & succession in those parts, and how they shall 
demaine themselves, towards foraigne princes, and their people, or how 
they shall bear them selves towards us, and our subjects, as well in any 
foraine parts whatsoever, or on y e seas in those parts, or in their returne 
sayling home ; or which may pertaine to y e clergie governmente, or to 
y e cure of soules, among y e people ther living, and exercising trad in 
those parts; by designing out congruente porcions arising in tithes, 
oblations, & other things ther, according to your sound discretions, in 
politicall & civill causes ; and by haveing y e advise of 2. or 3. bishops, 
for y e setling, making, & ordering of y e bussines, for y e designeing of 
necessary ecclesiasticall, and clargie porcions, which you shall cause to 
be called, and taken to you. And to make provision against y e viola- 
tion of those laws, constitutions, and ordinances, by imposing penealties 
& mulcts, imprisonmente if ther be cause, and y t y e quality of y e offense 
doe require it, by deprivation of member, or life to be inflicted. With 
power allso (our assente being had) to remove, & displace y e governours 
or rulers of those collonies, for causes which shall seeme to you lawfull, 
and others in their stead to constitute ; and require an accounte of 
their rule & governement, and whom you shall finde culpable, either by 
deprivation from their place, or by imposition of a mulcte upon y e goods 
of them in those parts to be levied, or banishmente from those provinces 
in w ch they have been gove r or otherwise to cashier according to y e quan- 



276 APPENDIX A. 

tity of y e offense. And to constitute judges & magistrats politicall & 
civill, for civill causes and under y e power and forme, which to you 5 . or 
more of you shall seeme expediente. And judges & magistrats & dig- 
nities, to causes Ecclesiasticall, and under y e power & forme, whiche 
to you 5. or more of you, with the bishops viceregents (provided by 
y e Archbishop of Counterbure for y e time being), shall seeme expediente ; 
and to ordaine courts, pretoriane and tribunall, as well ecclesiasticall, as 
civill, of judgementes ; to detirmine of y e formes and maner of proceed- 
ings in y e same ; and of appealing from them in matters & causes as 
well criminall, as civill, personall, reale, and mixte, and to the seats of 
justice, what may be equall & well ordered, and what crimes, faults, or 
exesses, of contracts or injuries ought to belonge to y e Ecclesiasticall 
courte, and what to y e civill courte, and seate of justice. 

Provided never y e less, y* the laws, ordinances, & constitutions of this 
kinde, shall not be put in execution, before our assent be had therunto 
in writing under our signet, signed at least, and this assente being had, 
and y e same publikly proclaimed in y e provinces in which they are to be 
executed, we will & comand y* those lawes, ordinances, and constitu- 
tions more fully to obtaine strength and be observed shall be inviolably 
of all men whom they shall concerne. 

Notwithstanding it shall be for you, or any 5. or more of you, (as is 
afforesaid,) allthough those lawes, constitutions, and ordinances shalbe 
proclaimed with our royall assente, to chainge, revocke, & abrogate 
them, and other new ones, in forme afforesaid, from time to time frame 
and make as afforesaid ; and to new evills arissing, or new dangers, to 
apply new remedyes as is fitting, so often as to you shalle seem expe- 
diente. Furthermore you shall understand that we have constituted 
you, and every 5. or more of you, the afforesaid Archbishop of Counter- 
burie, Thomas Lord Coventrie, Keeper of y e Great Seale of England, 
Richard, Bishop of Yorke, Richard, Earle of Portland, Henery, Earle of 
Manchester, Thomas, Earle of Arundale & Surry, Edward, Earell of 
Dorsett, Francis Lord Cottinton, S r Thomas Edmonds, [Edwards in the 
manuscript] knighte, S r Henry Vane, knight, S r Francis Windebanke, 
knight, our comissioners to hear, & determine, according to your 
sound discretions, all maner of complaints either against those collonies, 
or their rulers, or govenours, at y e instance of y e parties greeved, or at 
their accusation brought concerning injuries from hence, or from thence, 
betweene them, & their members to be moved, and to call y e parties 
before you ; and to the parties or to their procurators, from hence, or 
from thence being heard y e full complemente of justice to be exhibited. 



OBSERVATIONS OF THE BISHOP OF LONDON, 1707. 277 

Giving unto you, or any 5. or more of you power, y* if you shall find 
any of y e collonies afforesaid, or any of y e cheefe rulers upon y e jurisdic- 
tions of others by unjust possession, or usurpation, or one against 
another making greevance, or in rebelion against us, or withdrawing 
from our alegance, our own comandments, not obeying, consultation first 
with us in y* case had, to cause those colonies, or y e rulers of them, for 
y e causes afforesaid, or for other just causes either to returne to England, 
or to comand them to other places designed, even as according to your 
sounde discretions it shall seeme to stand with equitie, & justice, or 
necessitie. Moreover we doe give unto you, & any 5. or more of you, 
power & spetiall comand over all y e charters, leters patents, and rescripts 
royall, of y e regions, provinces, ilands, or lands in foraigne parts, granted 
for raising colonies, to cause them to be brought before you, & y e same 
being received, if any thing surrepticiously or unduly have been obtained, 
or y* by the same priviledges, liberties, & prerogatives hurtfull to us, or 
to our crowne, or to foraigne princes, have been prejudicially suffered, 
or granted ; the same being better made knowne unto you 5. or more of 
you, to comand them according to y e laws and customs of England to be 
revoked, and to doe such other things, which to y e profite & safgard of 
y e afforesaid collonies, and of our subjects residente in y e same, shall be 
necessary. And therfore we doe comand you that aboute y e premisses 
at days & times, which for these things you shall make provission, that 
you be diligente in attendance, as it becometh you ; giving in precepte 
also, & firmly injoyning, we doe give comand to all and singuler cheefe 
rulers of provinces into which y e colonies afforesaid have been drawne, 
or shall be drawne, give atendance upon you, and be observante and 
obediente unto your warrants in perill. In testimony wherof, we have 
caused these our letters to be made patente. Wittness our selfe at 
Westminster the 28. day of Aprill, in y e tenth year of our Raigne. 
By write from y e privie seale, 

Willies. 
Anno Dom : 1634. 

III. OBSERVATIONS OF THE BISHOP OF LONDON REGARD- 
ING A SUFFRAGAN FOR AMERICA. 

Printed in the New York Colonial Documents, V. 29, 30, from the Lambeth 
MSS.,No. 711, p. 118. 

[Dec. 1707] 

The present disorders now arising in some of y e Plantations, and 
likely to increase to an entire discouragement of the Clergy already 



278 APPENDIX A. 

there Established, doe, I presume, fully convince the necessity of having 
a Bishop Established in those parts. 

The only question therefore is, what sort of Bishop will be most 
proper first to settle there. An absolute Bishop, as that of the Isle of 
Man, will not be so proper, at least to begin with, for these reasons. 

1. It will give a great alarm to the several colonies, as it did in K. 
Charles y e 2 ds time, when there came over Petitions and addresses with 
all violence imaginable. 

2. Because the grounds of that opposition are generally still the same. 

3. For the true reason of their averseness to a Bishop, is the great 
apprehension they have of being restrained from that Licentiousness 
they now too often put in practice. 

4. As in Virginia they seldom present a Minister to the Governor to 
be inducted, but keep him as a probationer all the while he stays with 
them, that they may make what Composition they please with him for 
his allowance, and it may be give him leave to make up the rest by tak- 
ing care of a Neighboring Parish. 

5. Besides, all over the Plantations they frequently take other men's 
wives, are guilty of Bigamy and Incest, which they are apprehensive 
would be more strictly inquired into, had they a Bishop to inspect over 
them. 

Now a Suffragan would come among them with all necessary power 
to restrain vice and keep good order, without any noise or clamor. 

1. They having already been used to a Commissary, a Bishop will 
come upon them then more insensibly, if he comes over by the same 
authority, and under y e same Jurisdiction as the others did. 

2. Confirmation, Consecration of Churches and conferring Holy 
Orders are powers they desire to have among them ; and when they 
come in only by the change of a Title, it will be cheerfully received as a 
thing of their own seeking. 

3. It will be the safest way to take at first for a proof how it will 
take amongst them, and all faults and defects may more Easily be cor- 
rected and amended : because it will not be neer so troublesome to 
question and remove a Suffragan Bishop as another ; nor will his being 
put out of office be neer so inconvenient. 

4. Besides, the beginning of any new Establishment ought to be 
carried on gradually, which will make all steps Easier and in case of dis- 
appointment the matter will not be so grievous. 

This is what occurs to me at present of such observations as I appre- 
hend proper to be laid down. 



CORRESPONDENCE OF COMMISSARY GORDON, 1724-1723. 279 

IV. CORRESPONDENCE OF COMMISSARY GORDON OF BARBA- 
DOES CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION OF THE BISHOP 
OF LONDON IN THE COLONIES. 

From the Manuscripts in the Fulham Library. 

I. 

Rev. Wm. Gordon to Gov. H. Worsley of the Barbadoes, February 
10, 1723/24. 

I beg leave to acquaint your Excellency that altho' I never did my- 
self the Honour of writing or applying to the present Bishop of London, 
yet his L : ship has thought fit to send me some circular Letters, with some 
General Queries, to be answered by the Clergy of this Island ; as also a 
Letter, and some particular Queries to myself, and as I shall ever study 
to avoid all Appearance of doing anything, in your Excellency's Govern- 
ment ; without your Approbation, so I thought it my Duty to Communi- 
cate these Papers to your Excellency, and humbly pray your Excelly 
to peruse them, and let me know, whether it be your Excellency's pleas- 
ure, that I should forward them as his Lordship desires, being deter- 
min'd to take no step without your Excellency's Approbation. 



Gov. H. Worsley of Barbadoes in reply to Rev. Wm. Gordon. 

February 15, 1723/24. 

From the perusal of the R* Reverend Lord Bishop of London's Let- 
ter to you, I find his Lordship is of Opinion that there is a great uncer- 
tainty in the ground and Extent of his Jurisdiction in the Plantations, and 
as I can't authorize any Jurisdiction the Bishop of London may have till 
I know what it is, I must consider his Lordships Letters and Queries to 
you and the rest of the Clergy of this Island, as private Letters and 
Queries to you and them, to which I think you ought all to pay in your 
private Capacity, all the honour and respect, that is due to so learned, so 
good, so wise, and so great a Prelate. Your prudent Conduct in this 
Affair is very Commendable and praiseworthy. 

3- 

Rev. Commissary Gordon to the Bishop of London. 

November 3, 1725. 
[Gordon understands that the successive Bishops of London] by an- 
cient right and prescription claimed Jurisdiction of all the foreign plan- 



280 APPENDIX A. 

tations. [He also understands that Laud got a declaration of this right 
by an order in Council ; but though he has " searched the Council Books 
from Queen Elizabeth to King Charles " he has been unable to find any 
trace of such an order. 

After these prefatory remarks he continues as follows :] 

If the Bishop of London's authority over the Colonies should not be 
so very Ancient, It is I think pretty certain that they were put under his 
Care by an Order in Council in the Latter End of King Charles, or at 
least in the Beginning of King James 2? Reign ; And, notwithstanding 
the Original Order is not now to be found in the Council Books, Yet 
about the time the Order is said to be made there is a Blank to be seen 
in the Council Books left for Inserting Something which the Clerks have 
still neglected to insert, and which was probably the very Order want- 
ing ; and I am of opinion that whoever has Mr. Blathwaite's Papers, 
who was at that time Chief Acting Clerk of Council, may find the said 
Original Order among them — 

That there was such an Order I am strongly induc'd to believe from 
the following Reasons. 

if — Because about that time there was an Order of Council made 
for adding the Bishop of London to the Lords Commissioners for Trade 
and Plantations who were then all Lords of the Privy Council. 

2 dly Because, about the same time, Several Clauses were added to 
every Governors Instructions and Authorities, and have ever since con- 
tinued, some of which are in the Words following. . } 

This last Instruction [i.e. that reserving to the Governor the three 
functions of licenses for marriages, probate of wills, and collation to 
benefices] or Authority, having these Words, which we have Reserved 
&c, seems to refer to Something done before ; for every Reservation 
necessarily implies some previous Grant out of which the Reservation is 
made. 

3<| ly From the annexed Copy of a Letter from Bp. Compton to 
Lord Howard Governor of Virginia, Septr 1685. Wherein the Order is 
expressly mentioned, and the Reason why the Power was Vested in the 
Bishop. 

4 *My F rom two Orders of Council, Oct 1686 One Suspending the 
Bp of London from his Diocese, and Vesting the Exercise of his 
authority in Commissioners ; The other, in about a week after, Suspend- 

1 The two clauses about the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and licensing 
clergymen; see above, p. 30. 



GORDON TO GIBSON, 172s. 28 1 

ing him with the same fformality from his Authority in the Plantations, 
& vesting it in the same Commissioners. 

These Reasons, in my Opinion, are Sufficient to Shew that there was 
a Standing Order of Council Vesting the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of 
the Colonies, in the Bishop of London; tho' not to be found in the 
Council Books ; But even Supposing there never was any such Order, 
it will make but little alteration in the Case, whilst the Temporary 
Orders of Council in every Governor's Instructions and Authorities 
Subsist and continue ; rlor as long as they do, they are of as much, 
nay of more, force than any standing Order of Council, as being them- 
selves not only Solemn Orders of Council pass'd and established but 
also referred to and expressly enforc'd by Letters Patents under the 
Broad Seal. The Instructions, which His Majesty in his Patent calls 
also by the more proper Name of Authorities are (in all Matters 
relating to Government, and not otherwise settled by the English 
Common or Statute Law before the Year 1626, nor by any Law made 
in the Barbadoes since) standing Laws, of the same force with Acts 
of Parliament and equally Obligatory. 

'Tis only by Virtue of these Instructions & Authorities that we 
enjoy the Liberty of being admitted to Bail for all Crimes Bailable by 
the Laws of England ; and by these the Judges think themselves well 
warranted to proceed accordingly. 'Tis by this we have a Court of 
Errors, and Liberty of appeal to his Majesty in Council; And Since, 
by these, the King orders that the Govern 1 " give all Countenance & 
Encouragement as far as conveniently may be to the Exercise of the 
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Bishop of London excepting as before 
excepted, the Exercise thereof is well warranted by the Instructions & 
Authorities and by the Commission under the Great Seal, by which 
these are expressly enforc'd. 

It has been urged that the Words, as far as conveniently may be 
leave it to the Governor's Discretion whether he will Suffer a Com- 
missary to Act at all ; but even in that Sense of the Instruction ; it will 
Surely be Granted that where he not only permits but desires a Commis- 
sary to Exercise his Power, there the Instruction is Sufficient Warrant 
for every Legal Act of his. 

This Power only labours under the Defect of being Alterable and 
Determinable at the King's Pleasure, as the Commissions and Instruc- 
tions are ; But til the King actually Determines Alters or Revokes his 
Commission & Instructions, they are (with all Deference to Superior 
Judgments) in my humble Opinion, very Sufficient to Warrant the 



282 APPENDIX A. 

appointment of a Commissary to proceed in a Judicial manner, the 
Leave & Countenance of a Governor, and so it was always judged in 
Barbadoes, and ever since the foregoing Authorities were inserted 
in the Governor's Commission & Instructions, til Mr. Lowther [a 
clergyman tried in Barbadoes] questioned the Validity of the Bishops 
Authority. . . 



Copy of a Letter from Henry L? Bp. of London to the Lord 
Howard of Effingham, Governor of Virginia. 

From the Manuscripts in the Fulham Library. 1 

My Lord, 

" I read your Commands for the Books and hope to get an order 
for them Suddenly, that I may send them by Some Ship of this Season. 
I do most humbly thank your Ldp for the great Care you have taken in 
Settling the Church under your Government. There is a Constant 
Order of Council remaining with Mr. Blaithwaite that no Man shall 
continue in any Parish without Orders, nor any be received without a 
License under the hand of the Bishop of London for the time being, 
and that the Minister shall be always one of the Vestry. This Order 
was made four or five years since, and I make no doubt, among others, 
you have it in your Instructions. This King has likewise made one 
lately that except Licenses for marriages, Probat of wills, & disposing 
of the Parishes, all other Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction shall be in the 
Bishop of London. By Virtue of which you shall have a Commission 
to appoint Mr Clayton, or whom else you think most proper to execute 
that Authority. One chief Reason why this power is put into me is 
because unless it comes originally from an Ecclesiastical Person it 
cannot be legally executed ; And I beseech Do not think I would 
proceed in this or anything else without putting it into Your Ldp's 
hands and leaving it wholly to your Disposal. I would likewise beg of 
you to let M 1 . Clayton know that to go farther would be very unreason- 
able at this time which may serve for an Answer to his Letter, But as 
soon as it shall be proper to move in that Business be sure to hear 
from [me.] 

1 The copy in the Fulham MSS. is undated. Gordon, in his letter to Gibson, 
see above, p. 280, puts it September, 1685. 



EXTRACTS FROM THE WEEKLY MISCELLANY. 283 

5- 

Order in Council suspending Bishop Compton from the Exercise 
of his Jurisdiction in the Colonies. 1 

"At the Court, Whitehall, October 27 1686. 
"The King in Council. 

Whereas His Majesty has thought fitt to appoint Commissioners for 
exercising the Episcopal Jurisdiction within the City & Diocese of 
London, His Majesty in Council does this Day Declare his pleasure 
that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Plantations shall be exercised 
by the said Commissioners ; and did order & it is hereby ordered that 
the R- Honble the Lords of the Commn for Trade & Plantations do 
prepare Instructions for the Several Governors in the Plantations 
accordingly. 

V. GIBSON'S COMMISSION AND RELATIVE PAPERS. 

1. 

Extracts from the Weekly Miscellany. 2 

Of the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of London in the Foreign Planta- 
tions. 

[Bishop Gibson applied for a Commission from the King because the 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the colonies was] beyond the limits of 
his own Diocese ; the Plantations being no part of the Diocese of Lon- 
don, nor the Ecclesiastical Affairs thereof under his Care, any otherwise 
than by special Authority from the King, who, if he please, may as well 
authorize any other Bishop for that Purpose. . . 

To satisfy himself in this Point, he examined all the Council-Books 
of the Reign of King Charles the Second, Page by Page, but did not 
find any such Order of Council, either enter'd there, or remaining in the 
Council-Office. And he was moreover informed by very able Lawyers, 

1 Referred to by Commissary Gordon in his letter to Bp. Gibson, see above, 
pp. 280-281. 

2 This periodical is very rare, the only file I have seen being that in the British 
Museum. These extracts, from Vol. I, No. 11, pp. 79-86, are valuable as giving a 
practically contemporaneous account of the opinions concerning the scope of the 
Bishop of London's colonial jurisdiction and of Gibson's efforts to place it on a 
definite footing. The full title is Weekly Miscellany, Giving an Account of the Re- 
ligion, Morality, and learning of the Present Times. Ed. Richard Hooker, Esq. 
London, 2 vols. 1 736-1 738. 



284 APPENDIX A. 

that such an Order, though it should be found, would not warrant the 
Bishop to grant Commissions to others, unless he himself should be first 
empowered so to do by a Commission from the King under the great 
seal, the Plantations being not part of any Diocese, but remaining under 
the sole and immediate Jurisdiction of the King ; and that Jurisdiction 
not to be legally delegated, but under the Great Seal. . . 

And because the Bishop forsaw, and was inform'd, That the exercise 
of an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over the whole Body of the Laity in the 
Plantations, might occasion great Uneasiness, and perhaps publick Dis- 
turbance, he humbly proposed to his Majesty in Council, that the Com- 
mission under the Great Seal, if thought proper to be granted, might 
extend only to the Clergy, and to such other Persons and Matters as 
Concern'd the Repair of Churches, and the decent Performance of 
Divine service therein : Which was approv'd, and Commission accord- 
ingly ordered and issued. 

After this, the Bishop presented a second Petition to his late 
Majesty, relating to the Correction and Reformation of the Lives and 
Manners of the Laity, in the several Governments of the Plantations. 
According to the Prayer of which Petition, his Majesty was graciously 
pleased to order in Council, That an additional Instruction should be 
sent to the several Governors, of the following Tenor : 

1 His Majesty having had under his Royal Consideration, a Petition 
from the Right Reverend Father in God Edmund Lord Bishop of 
London, humbly beseeching him to send Instructions to the Gov- 
ernors of all the several Plantations in America, that they cause all 
Laws already made against Blasphemy, Prophaneness, Adultery, Forni- 
cation, Polygamy, Incest, Prophanation of the Lord's Day, Swearing and 
Drunkenness, in their respective Governments, to be vigorously exe- 
cuted ; and his Majesty thinking it highly just, that all Persons who 
shall offend in any of the Particulars aforesaid, should be prosecuted 
and punished for their said Offenses ; it is therefore his Majesty's Will 
and Pleasure, That you take due Care for the Punishment of the afore- 
mentioned Vices, and that you earnestly recommend it to the Assembly 

of his Majesty's Province of to provide effectual Laws for the 

Restraint and Punishment of all such aforementioned Vices, against 
which no Laws are as yet provided; and also you are to use your 
Endeavors to render the Laws being more effectual, by providing for 
the Punishment of the aforementioned Vices, by Presentment upon 
Oath, to be made to the Temporal Courts by the Church-wardens of 
the several Parishes, at proper Times of the Year, to be appointed for 



PETITION OF GIBSON" TO GEORGE I. 285 

that Purpose, And for the further Discouragement of Vice, and the 
Encouragement of Virtue and good Living (that by such Example the 
Infidels may be invited, and desire to embrace the Christian Religion) 
you are not to admit any Person to publick Trusts and Employments 
in the Province under your Government, whose ill Fame and Conver- 
sation may occassion Scandal. And it is his Majesty's further Will and 
Pleasure, that you recommend to the Assembly to enter upon proper 
Methods for the erecting and Maintaining of Schools, in order to the 
training up of Youth to leading, and to a necessary knowledge of the 
Principles of Religion.' 

The Commission above-mention'd expired upon the Death of his 
late Majesty; and before a new one could pass the Great Seal, it was 
represented to the Bishop, ' That insomuch as the Laws of the Several 
Governments have already provided for the Repair of Churches, and the 
furnishing of such things as are necessary for the decent Performance of 
Divine Service ; the taking that care out of the Hands of the Vestries 
who are chiefly intrusted with it, would probably give Uneasiness, and 
be the Occasion of having the Fabricks and Furniture of Churches not 
so well taken Care of as they are at present ' : Whereupon the Bishop, 
desiring as much as possible to avoid the giving Offense, and the raising 
any Uneasiness, was content that the new Commission should be con- 
fined to a Jurisdiction of the Clergy alone ; and so it stands. 



Petition of Bishop Gibson to have his Jurisdiction placed upon a 
More Definite Basis. 

From the Manuscripts in the Fulham Library. 

To the King's Most Excellent Majesty The humble Representa- 
tion of Edmund Bishop of London. 

Sheweth 

That from the time that Churches have been regularly established in 
the Plantations abroad, it has been generally understood that the Spiritual 
Jurisdiction over those Churches was vested in the Bishop of London by 
an Order of Councill in the Reign of King Charles the Second. And tho' 
no Such Order appears upon the Councill Books, nor has the present 
Bishop been able to discover it after the Strictest Search, yet he finds 



286 APPENDIX A. 

evident Testimonies of such a Jurisdiction claimed and exercised so 
early as that Reign... 

[After a short historical survey which he concludes by alluding to 
the appointment of commissaries by Compton and Robinson, Gibson 
continues :] 

That the Commissaries being thus Empowered by the Bishops of 
London, have attempted to proceed in the Exercise of Jurisdiction ; but 
tho they have been very careful not to intermeddle in Collations, Wills 
or Licenses, yet have they been absolutely forbidden and hindered to 
hold any Courts at all, or to proceed judicially in any matters whatsoever ; 
and great Disturbances have been occassioned thereby, particularly, the 
Prohibition was carried so far by Mr. Lowther, late Governor of Barba- 
does, as to procure an Act of Assembly and Councill to forbid the 
issuing any Citation or Process whatsoever, under a Penalty of ^500. 

That by this and the like Restraints and Prohibitions, the Jurisdic- 
tion of the Bishop of London in the Plantations is become merely 
nominal ; and the Commissaries appointed as above have been deterr'd 
from proceeding judicially against any Persons for Immoralities or 
Irregularities of any Kind. And it hath been inserted in some Instruc- 
tions to Governors as follows, If any Person already pref err 1 d to a Benefice, 
shall appear to you to give Scandal, either by his Doctrine or Manners, 
you are to use the best means for the Removal of him. By which Clause 
in the Instructions, the Jurisdiction of the Bishop even over the Clergy, 
seems to be transferred to the Governor. 

That upon account of the Uncertainties in the Jurisdiction of the 
Bishop of London, and the Difficulties attending the exercise of it ; the 
present Bishop, to prevent the like Disorder and Confusion that hath 
formerly happened between the Governors and Commissaries, hath fore- 
bore to appoint a Commissary in any one of the Governments, till your 
Majesty's Royal Pleasure shall be known, and the Extent of his Juris- 
diction shall be explained and ascertained, in such manner as may best 
answer the Ends of Spiritual Jurisdiction, and at the same time may 
be Consistent with the Temporal Peace and Welfare of the Several 
Governments. 

Edm'. London.' 



ORDER IN COUNCIL OF 1726. 287 



Order in Council relating to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the 

Plantations. 

P. R. O., B. T., Plantations General, Vol. X. [8] 70. Printed in New Jersey 
Archives, V. 126-128. 

At the Court at Kensington the 9 th day of Aug*? 1726. 
Present 
The Kings Most Excell^ Majesty in Council. 

Whereas the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of London did some 
time since humbly represent unto his Majesty at this Board the Uncer- 
taintys in his Spiritual Jurisdiction over the Churches in his Majestys 
Plantations and the Difficultys attending the Exercise of the Same, and 
prayed that the Extent of his said Jurisdiction might be explained and 
Ascertained — His Majesty was thereupon pleased to referr the Consider- 
ation thereof to a Committee of the Privy Council — And Whereas the 
said Lords of the Committee did this day Report to his Majesty that 
having considered the several Points, wherein it might be proper for the 
Lord Bishop of London or his Commissaries to exercise such Ecclesi- 
astical Jurisdiction, they had thereupon caused a Draught of a Commis- 
sion to be prepared for putting the same into Execution — Which 
Draught the said Lords of the Committee humbly offered as proper to 
be forthwith past under the Great Seal of Great Britain. His Majesty 
in Council taking the same into Consideration was pleased to approve 
the said Draught of a Commission which is hereunto annexed 1 and to 
order that the same to be forthwith past, under the Great Seal of Great 
Britain — And his Majesty is hereby pleased to Order, that the Blanks, 
left in the Draught for the names of the persons to compose a Court, 
for hearing Appeales from any Sentences that shall be given in the 
Plantations by Virtue of the Said Commission, shall be filled up with the 
names of the following Lords Viz* — 

William Lord Arch Bishop of Canterbury and the Lord Arch Bishop of 
Canterbury for the time being. 

Peter Lord King Lord High Chancellor and Lord High Chancellor 
or Lord Keeper for the time being. 

1 This commission expired with the death of George I., June 12, 1727; the one 
under which Gibson exercised his jurisdiction was issued by George II., April 29, 
1728, and is printed below, pp. 289-293. 



288 APPENDIX A. 

Lancelot Lord Arch Bishop of York and the Lord Arch Bishop of 
York for the time being. 

The Lord High Treasurer for the time being. 

William Duke of Devonshire Lord President of his Majestys Most 
Hon b . le Privy Council and the Lord President of the Council for the time 
being. 

Thomas Lord Trevor Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal and the Lord 
Privy Seal for the time being. 

Lionel Duke of Dorset Lord Steward of his Majesty's Household and 
the Lord Steward for the time being. 

Charles Duke of Grafton Lord Chamberlain of his Majesty's House- 
hold and the Lord Chamberlain for the time being. 

Thomas Holies Duke of Newcastle — One of his Majesty's Principal 
Secretarys of State and the Principal Secretary of State for the time 
being. 

Thomas Earl of Westmoreland 

James Earl of Berkley First Commissi of the Admirality and the 
Lord High Admiral and First Commissioner of the Admirality for the 
time being. 

Charles Lord Visco* Townshend One of his Majestys Principal Secre- 
taries of State and the Principal Secretary of State for the time being. 

Edmund Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of London for 
the time being. 

Sf Spencer Compton Knt of the Bath Speaker of the House of Com- 
mons and the Speaker of the House of Commons for the time being. 

S : r Robert Walpole Kn* of the Garter Chancellor of the Exchequer 
and First Commissf of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
and first Commissf of the Treasury for the time being. 

Sf Robert Raymond Kn* Lord Chief Justice of his Majestys Court of 
Kings Bench and the Lord Chief Justice of the Kings Bench for the time 
being. 

Sir Joseph Jekyll Kn? Master of the Rolls and the Master of the Rolls 
for the time being. 

Sf Robert Eyre Kn? Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas 
and the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas for the time being. 

being members of his Majesty's most Hon b i e Privy Council, And that 
any three of the said Lords do make a Quorum. And one of his 
Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State is to prepare a Warrant for his 
Majesty's Royal Signature in order to pass the said Commission under 
the Great Seal Accordingly. 



ROYAL COMMISSION OF 1728. 289 

Copy of an Order in Council of the 19^ of August 1726 directing a Com- 
mission to pass under y e Great Seal relating to y e Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in y e 
Plan 3 & appointing a Court for Hearing Appeals pursuant to y e S d Com'ission. 



Commission to the Bishop of London for exercising Jurisdiction 
in the American Colonies. 

New York Colonial Documents, V. 849-854, from Plantations General 
Papers, XL 10. 

Royal Commission for exercising Spiritual and Ecclesiastical 
Jurisdiction in the American Plantations. 

George the Second, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain 
France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith &c, To the Reverend father 
in Christ, Edmund, by Divine permission, Bishop of London, Greeting : 

Whereas the Colonies, Plantations, and other our dominions in America, 
are not yet divided into, constituted as, neither annexed to, any Diocese 
within our Kingdom of Great Britain ; by reason whereof Jurisdiction in 
Ecclesiastical causes arising in them, or in any one of them, belongeth to 
Us only, as the Supreme Head of the Church on earth ; And whereas it 
seemeth to Us necessary that henceforth Spiritual and Ecclesiastical 
Jurisdiction should, in the cases hereinafter mentioned, be established, 
and exercised in those parts, by virtue of our Royal Authority, according 
to the Laws and Canons of the Church of England, in England lawfully 
received and sanctioned, to the better promoting of the sincere worship 
of God, and the pure profession of the Christian Religion ; and whereas 
our Royal Father, George the First, late King of Great Britain, &c, did, 
by letters patent, under the great seal of Great Britain, bearing date at 
Westminster, the ninth of February, in the thirteenth year of his reign, 
give and grant unto you, the Bishop of London aforesaid, full power and 
authority, by yourself, or by your sufficient commissary, or commissaries 
to be by you substituted and named, to exercise Spiritual and Ecclesias- 
tical Jurisdiction in his several Colonies, Plantations, and other dominions 
in America, during the good pleasure of the said late King, as by the 
said letters patent doth, upon examination, more fully appear; Know 
ye, that We have revoked, and determined, and do, by these presents, 
revoke, and determine the above mentioned letters patent, with all and 
singular the things therein contained. And further know ye, that We, 
reposing especial confidence in your sound religion, learning and probity, 
and in your prudence and industry in the management of affairs, have, 



290 APPENDIX A. 

of our special favor, certain knowledge and mere motion, given and 
granted, and do by these presents, give and grant to you, the Bishop of 
London aforesaid, full power and authority, by yourself, or by your 
sufficient commissary, or commissaries to be by you substituted and 
named, to exercise Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the special 
causes and matters hereinafter expressed and specified, within our several 
Colonies, Plantations, and other dominions in America, according to the 
laws and canons of the Church of England, in England lawfully received 
and sanctioned. And for declaration of our Royal Pleasure as to the 
special causes and matters in which we will that the Jurisdiction above 
named be, by virtue of this our commission, exercised, we have further 
given and granted, and do, by these presents, give and grant to you, the 
Bishop of London aforesaid, full power and authority, by yourself, or by 
your sufficient commissary, or commissaries to be by you substituted and 
named, to visit all churches in our aforesaid Colonies, Plantations, and 
other dominions in America, in which Divine Service according to the 
Rites and Liturgy of the Church of England shall have been celebrated, 
and the Rectors, Curates Ministers and Incumbents, by whatever name 
called belonging to said Churches, and all Presbyters and Deacons 
admitted into the Holy Orders of the Church of England, with all and 
every Sort of Jurisdiction, power, and Ecclesiastical coercion, requisite 
in the premises ; and to Summon the aforesaid Rectors, Curates, Minis- 
ters, Incumbents, Presbyters or Deacons admitted into the Holy Orders 
of the Church of England, or any of them, and no person else, before 
yourself or your commissary, or commissaries aforesaid, upon whatever 
days and hours, and at whatever suitable places, as often as, and when- 
soever, to yourself or to your commissary, or commissaries aforesaid, 
shall seem most fit and convenient, and by means of witnesses, to be 
sworn in due form of law by yourself, or your commissary, or commis- 
saries aforesaid, and by such other proper ways and methods, as can 
with right be more advantageously and effectually used, to examine con- 
cerning the manners of the same, according to the laws and canons of 
the Church of England ; and also to administer all oaths lawful and 
customary in Ecclesiastical Courts, and to correct and punish the afore- 
said Rectors, Curates, Ministers, Incumbents, Presbyters and Deacons 
in the Holy Orders of the Church of England, according to their demerits, 
whether by amotion, suspension, excommunication, or by any sort of 
Ecclesiastical censure, or due correction, according to the canons and 
Laws Ecclesiastical aforesaid. And further, of our superabundant favor, 
we have given and granted, and do, by these presents, give and grant to 



ROYAL COMMISSION OF 1728. 291 

you, the Bishop of London aforesaid, full power and authority, from time 
to time, to nominate and substitute under your hand and Episcopal seal, 
sufficient Commissaries to exercise and effectually execute all and singular 
the premises, in each and every of the Colonies, Plantations, and Domin- 
ions aforesaid, in America, according to the tenor and true intent of this 
our Commission, and from time to time, to remove and change such 
Commissaries, as to you shall seem fit. You, the Bishop of London 
aforesaid having and enjoying all and singular, the powers and authori- 
ties above recited, during our good pleasure. We will, nevertheless, and 
do by these presents, declare and ordain, that it may and shall be lawful 
for any person, or persons whatsoever, against whom any judgment, 
decree, or sentence, shall have been given or pronounced, by virtue of 
this our Commission, to appeal from such judgment, decree, or sentence, 
to our Right trusty and Well-beloved Councillors, the most Reverend 
Father in Christ William, Archbishop of Canterbury, and to the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury for the time being; Peter, Lord King, Baron of 
Ockham, our Chancellor of Great Britain, and to our Chancellor of Great 
Britain, or Keeper of our Great Seal of Great Britain for the time being ; 
the Most Reverend Father in Christ, Lancelot, Archbishop of York, and 
to the Archbishop of York for the time being ; our High Treasurer of 
Great Britain for the time being ; William, Duke of Devonshire, Presi- 
dent of our Privy Council, and to the President of our Privy Council for 
the time being ; Thomas, Lord Trevor, Keeper of our Privy Seal, and 
to the Keeper of our Privy Seal for the time being ; Lionel Cranfield, 
Duke of Dorset, Steward of our Palace, and to the Steward of our Palace 
for the time being ; Charles, Duke of Grafton, Chamberlain of our Palace, 
and to the Chamberlain of our Palace for the time being ; Thomas, Duke 
of Newcastle, one of our Principal Secretaries of State ; Thomas, Earl 
of Westmoreland, Charles, Viscount Townshend, another of our Principal 
Secretaries of State, and to our Principal Secretaries of State for the time 
being ; George, Viscount Torrington, First Lord Commissioner of our 
Admiralty, and to our Lord High Admiral, and first Lord Commissioner 
of the Admiralty for the time being ; Arthur Onslow, our Speaker of our 
House of Commons, and to the Speaker of our House of Commons for 
the time being ; Robert Walpole, Knight of the most Noble Order of the 
Garter, Chancellor of our Exchequer, and First Lord of our Treasury, 
and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and first Lord of the Treasury 
for the time being; Robert Raymond, Knight, our Chief Justice of Pleas 
before Us, and to our Chief Justice of Pleas before us for the time being ; 
Joseph Jekyll, Knight, Master of the Rolls of our Chancery, and to the 



292 APPENDIX A. 

Master of the Rolls of our Chancery for the time being, and Robert 
Eyre, Knight, our Chief Justice of Common Pleas, and to our Chief 
Justice of Common Pleas for the time being, To whom, that is to say, to 
William, Archbishop of Canterbury, and to the Archbishop of Canterbury 
for the time being ; Peter, Lord King, Chancellor of Great Britain, or 
the Keeper of our Great Seal of Great Britain for the time being ; Lance- 
lot, Archbishop of York, and to the Archbishop of York for the time 
being ; our High Treasurer of Great Britain for the time being ; William, 
Duke of Devonshire, and to the President of our Privy Council for the 
time being ; Thomas, Lord Trevor, and to the Keeper of our Privy Seal 
for the time being ; Lionel Cranfleld, Duke of Dorset, and to the Steward 
of our Palace for the time being ; Charles, Duke of Grafton, and to the 
Chamberlain of our Palace for the time being ; Thomas, Duke of New- 
castle, Thomas Earl of Westmoreland, Charles Viscount Townshend, and 
to the Principal Secretaries of State for the time being ; George Viscount 
Torrington, and to our Lord High Admiral and First Lord Commissioner 
of our Admiralty for the time being ; Arthur Onslow, and to the Speaker 
of our House of Commons for the time being ; Robert Walpole, and to 
the Chancellor of our Exchequer, and First Lord of our Treasury, for 
the time being ; Robert Raymond, and to our Chief Justice of Pleas 
before Us for the time being ; Joseph Jekyll, and to the Master of the 
Rolls of our Chancery for the time being ; and to Robert Eyre, and to 
our Chief Justice of Common Pleas for the time being, being of our Privy 
Council, or to any three or more of them, being of our Privy Council ; 
We do by these presents give and grant, full power and Authority, from 
time to time, to hear and determine, all and singular, such appeals ; and, 
such judgments, decrees, and sentences, to confirm, change, or revoke, 
and final judgment or sentence thereupon, to give and pronounce, in 
manner and form as full as the Commissioners constituted and appointed 
under our Great Seal of Great Britain by virtue of the Statute of the 
twenty fifth year of Henry Eighth late King of England entituled, "An 
Act for the submission of the Clergy and the restraint of Appeals," can 
or ought to proceed, in appeals subject to their decision, by the Statute 
aforesaid ; anything in these presents contained, to the contrary, not- 
withstanding. Commanding, moreover, and by these presents strictly 
enjoining, all and singular, our Governor-Generals, Judges, and Magis- 
trates, together with all and singular, our Rectors, Incumbents, Ministers, 
Officers, and Subjects of what sort soever, within our Colonies, Planta- 
tions, and other dominions aforesaid, in America, that they and each of 
them, shall be to you, the Bishop of London aforesaid, and to your com- 



ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS TO ROYAL GOVERNORS. 293 

missary, or commissaries aforesaid, in all things, aiding and assisting, as 
is fit, in the due execution of the premises. In testimony whereof, We 
have caused these Our Letters to be made patent. Witness Ourself, at 
Westminster, the twenty ninth day of April, in the first year of our Reign. 
By writ of Privy Seal 

Bisse and Bray. 

5- 

Additional Instructions to the Governors of the Plantations — 
to support the blshop of london and his commissaries. 

From P. R. O., B. T. Plantations General, No. 35, Entry Book F, 165. 
Also printed in New Jersey Archives, V. 264. 

To the King's Most Excell! Majesty. 

May it please your Majesty, 

In Obedience to Your Majesty's Commands Signify 'd to Us by his 
Grace y e Duke of Newcastle's Letter of the 21 s .' of the last Month, we 
have prepar'd the inclos'd Draughts of Instructions to all Your Majesty's- 
Governors in America, (except as undermention'd) directing them to 
support the Bishop of London & his Commissaries in the Exercise of 
Such Jurisdiction as is granted to his Lordship by Your Majesty's 
Commission to him. 

We have not inclos'd the Draughts of the Instruction to the Governors 
of the Leeward Islands, Massachusetts Bay & New Hampshire, North 
& South Carolina, as we intend to incorporate it in the General In- 
structions we are now preparing for the Governors of those Places : 

All which is most humbly Submitted. 

Edw? Ashe. Westmoreland. 

Orl. Bridgeman. P. Doeminique. 

W. Cary. T. Pelham. 

M. Bladen. 
Whitehall 17 th March 17H. 

6. 

Draught of an Additional Instruction relating to the Bishop of 
London's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in America. 

From P. R. O., B. T. Plantations General, No. 35, Entry Book F, 165. 
Also printed in New Jersey Archives, V. 265. 

Having been graciously pleas'd to grant unto the Right Pvev d Father 
in God Edmund Lord Bishop of London, a Commission under Our 
Great Seal of Great Britain, whereby he is impower'd to Exercise 



294 APPENDIX A. 

Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by himself or by such Commissaries as he 
shall appoint, in Our Several Plantations in America ; It is Our Will & 
Pleasure, That you give all Countenance & due Encouragement to the 
Said Bishop of London or his Commissaries in the Legal Exercise of 
Such Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, according to the Laws of the Island 
[Province] Colony under your Government, & to the Tenor of the Said 
Commission, a Copy whereof is hereunto annex'd, & that you do cause 
the Said Commission to be forthwith Register'd in the Publick Records 
of that Our Island (Province) Colony : 

Draughts of the foregoing Additional Instruction, were prepar'd for 

Robert Hunter, Esq! Gov? of Jamaica. 

Henry Worsley ........ Barbadoes. 

John Pitt Bermuda. 

Woodes Rogers Bahama's. 

Rich? Philips Nova Scotia. 

J n .° Montgomerie New York & N. Jersey. 

Earl of Orkney ........ Virginia. 

Ben? Leonard Calvert, Maryland. 

Patrick Gordon, Pennsylvania. 



VI. METHODUS PROCEDENDI CONTRA CLERICOS IRREGU- 
LARES IN PLANTATIONIBUS AMERICANIS. 1 

From a copy in the Fulham Library. 

I. 

Appointment of a Commissary. 

Edmundus, Permissione Divind London' Episcopus, Dilecto Nobis 
in Chris to, 

Salutem, Gratiam & Benedictionem. Ad exercendam Jurisdictionem 

Spiritualem & Ecclesiasticam infra Provinciam in America sitam, 

secundum tenorem Commissionis Serenissimi nostri Regis Georgii 
Secundi sub magno Sigillo gerentis dat' vicesimo nono die Aprilis, 

1 A quarto pamphlet of 16 pages. The copy among the Fulham MSS. is the only 
one known to be in existence. There is no date or place of publication; but the 
instructions were issued by Bishop Gibson on the 28th of September, 1728, and were 
probably printed privately. 



METHODUS PROCEDENDO 1728. 295 

anno Regni sui primo, praesentibusqz^/ annexae, & non aliter neque 
alio modo, Tibi de cujus Scientia, Circumspectione, Fidelitate, & Indus- 
trie plurimum Confidimus, Vices nostras tenore praesentium Comittimus, 
Teque Commissarium nostrum ad omnia in dictis Literis Commis- 
sionalibus contenta, & non alio, Commissarium nostrum Facimus & 
Constituimus per Praesentes, durante bene placito nostro. In cujus rei 
testimonium, Sigillum nostrum Episcopale praesentibus opponi fecimus. 

N. B. The Commissary, before he enters upon his Office, is to take 
the Oaths, and make the Subscription required by the 127th Canon. 

2. 

Directions to the Commissary. 
Good Brother ; 

His Majesty having been pleased to empower me, under the 
Great Seal, to exercise Jurisdiction over the Clergy in the Plantations 
abroad, which are as yet within no Diocese, but remain under the imme- 
diate Jurisdiction of the King as Supreme Head ; I have thought proper 
to appoint you my Commissary, and do accordingly transmit to you a 
Commission under my Episcopal Seal, together with a Copy of his 
Majesty's Commission to me ; by which you will see the Manner and 
Extent of the Jurisdiction that is to be Exercis'd by you as my Commis- 
sary within the Government of . 

As to the Method of your Procedings, and the Things which I would 
more particularly recommend to your Care ; I have judg'd it proper to 
set them down distinctly under the following Heads. 

I. That when any Clergyman shall be found irregular in his Life, or 
negligent in the Duties of his Station, you give him a private Admoni- 
tion ; and acquaint me, by the first Opportunity, with the Occasions you 
found to give him such Admonition : Only, if the Crimes charg'd upon 
him be of a flagrant Nature, and also publick and notorious, it will be 
fit, either that the Admonition be more publick, in the presence of such 
of the Clergy as you shall think proper, or that he be immediately 
proceded against in a judicial manner. 

II. That the Process be in a short and summary Way, according to 
the Order and Method laid out, and Contain'd in a Paper of Directions 
herewith transmitted to you ; entitled the Method of Proceding against 
irregular Clergymen. 

III. That when the Cause comes to the Hearing, you take to your 
Assistance at least Two Clergymen, whom you shall think most proper ; 



296 APPENDIX A. 

and that you confer with them, and that you desire their Opinions in 
Relation to the Nature of the Crime, and the Circumstances of the 
Proofs, and the Sentence proper to be given. 

IV. That if the Crime be not flagrant, and notorious, you rather 
chuse the Sentence of Suspension ab Officio 6° Beneficio, for such time 
as shall be judg'd convenient, than immediate Deprivation, tho' the case 
in Strictness might bear the latter; To the End the Party may have 
an Opportunity, in that Space, to give Proof of his Repentence and 
Reformation, or if he do not, that he may be prosecuted a-new in order 
to Deprivation. 

V. That once every year you hold a Visitation of the Clergy, in some 
Place or Places which may be most convenient for that Purpose ; and 
that you take that Opportunity to Communicate to them any Directions 
or Notices which you shall receive from hence ; and to give such Things 
in Charge, as either the General State of the Church, or any particular 
Occasions, may require ; and to confer with them about the State of 
Religion, and the best Methods of promoting it, in your several Parishes. 
More particularly, to put them in mind that one necessary means of pro- 
moting and propagating it within the [Parish], is, the exemplary Lives 
of themselves and their Families, and the Care they take to instruct their 
own Negro and Indian Servants in the Christian Faith. : . Of all 
which Proceedings, you are to give me an Account, as soon as you 
conveniently can, after the Visitation is finished. 

VI. That you make proper Enquiries concerning the State and Con- 
dition of all such Parsonage Houses as are repair'd at the charge of the 
Ministers, and also of the Glebes, whether their Houses be preserved in 
due Reparation, and the Glebes improv'd and occupied in a Husband- 
like Manner. 

VII. That you enquire from time to time, whether any Person be 
receiv'd and allow' d to officiate, who has not a Testimonial or License 
from me, or my Predecessors, for that Government, or coming from 
some other Government or Governments in the Plantations, did not 
moreover bring with him proper Testimonials of his good Behaviour 
from the time that he first arriv'd in the Plantations : And if any be 
receiv'd and employ'd who has no License ; or, having a License, doth 
not also produce such Testimonials ; that you give me notice of it by 
the first Opportunity. 

VIII. That you inform me, what steps are or shall be taken towards 
the obtaining an Act of Assembly, for Presentments of Crimes and Vices 
to be to the Temporal Courts twice every year ; according to the pur- 



METHODUS PROCEDENDO 297 

port of a late Clause, which has been added to the Instructions of every 
Governour in the Plantations : To the End that I may be able to inform 
his Majesty and the Council, in what Manner and to what Degree, the 
Suppression of Vice and Immorality among the Laity is provided for 
in that Government by the Temporal Laws ; pursuant to his Majesty's 
gracious Intention in sending the said Instruction. 

IX. That you give me Notice, from time to time, of any Hardships 
or Oppressions that you find the Clergy to labour under, in relation to 
the Rights which they are entitled to by the Laws and Constitution of 
the Government. 

X. That you take all proper Opportunities to recommend to the 
Clergy a loyal and dutiful Behaviour towards the present Government, 
as vested in his Majesty King George, and establish'd in the Illustrious 
House of Hanover ; and that they pay all due Submission and Respect 
to the Governour sent by him, as well in regard to his Commission and 
Character, as to engage his Favour and Protection to the Church and 
Clergy. 

These are the Things which I would suggest to you, as general Rules 
that may be proper to be observed in the Exercise of your Jurisdiction, 
leaving it to your own Prudence and Judgment to apply them to particu- 
lar Cases, as there Shall be Occasion. And so, commending you to the 
good Providence of God, and to his gracious Direction in this and all 
your other Affairs, I remain, 

Sir, 
Fulham Sept. Your assur'd Friend and Brother, 

28 I 7 28 * Edm.' London.' 



3- 
The Method of Proceeding against Irregular Clergymen. 

The Place of Judicature to be, either some convenient part of the 
Church where the Commissary is Incumbent, or where the Party prose- 
cuted dwells. 

Prosecution to be either ex Officio mero, i.e. by the Office assigning a 
Promoter, or by Accusation ; if the latter, such voluntary Promoter to give 
a Bond of 20 1. by way of Security to pay Costs, if he fail in the Proof. 

The Proceeding to be in a Summary way, as follows : The Citation to 
be under the Commissary's Seal, to appear at a Time and Place certain. 
Such Citation to be served by a Person who can at least Read and 



298 APPENDIX A. 

Write, and who shall make oath that He duly serv'd it, and left a Copy 
or Abstract thereof with the Party. 

If he could not serve it upon the Party, then a Process Viis & Modi's 
is to be hung on the Church Door where the said Party officiates, or on 
the Door of the House wherein he dwelt, returnable the next Court-day 
appointed for that Cause. And here it is to be remember'd, that when 
a Cause is once Instituted, the Courts are to be held regularly every ten 
Days. 

If there be no Appearance after Service of the Viis & Modis, He is to 
be pronounc'd Contumacious, and in pozna?n Contumacies, the Wit- 
ness [es] are to be admitted, sworn, and examined, and their Depositions 
publish'd, and a Day assign'd for Sentence. 

On the day of Appearance, Articles are to be given, and the Issue 
required, viz. Whether he confess or deny the Charge. If He confess, 
Punishment to be inflicted according to the Nature and Quality of the 
Offense, either by Admonition, Suspension, or Deprivation, together with 
the Costs necessarily expended. 

If he deny the Charge, then Witnesses are to be produced, who being 
sworn to speak the Truth, and the whole Truth, and nothing but the 
Truth, indifferently, between the Parties concern'd, shall be examin'd 
by a Notary Publick (if conveniently may be) or by a Person skilful in 
taking Depositions, and in the Presence of the Commissary, and His 
Assessors o?ily ; eight and forty Hours being first allow'd to the Defend- 
ant, to enquire into the characters of the several Witnesses, and to frame 
such Interrogations as He shall think proper. 

The Depositions are to be kept private, till all the Witnesses are 
examin'd ; and when the Examination of a Witness is finish'd, both as 
to his Deposition on the Articles, and his Answers to the Interrogatories, 
the whole to be read over to him by the Examiner in the Presence of 
the Judge and his Assessors, and the Witness ask'd, whether it be agree- 
able to his Mind, and whether it be all true ? and if he answer affirma- 
tively, he is to sign it. 

Witnesses duly Summon'd and not appearing, or appearing, and yet 
refusing to undergo their Examinations, altho' their necessary Expences 
are allow'd them, may be compelled thereto by Ecclesiastical Censures. 

The Defendant to be at Liberty, by himself, or any other Person act- 
ing as Proctor or Advocate for him, before the Depositions are publish'd 
(which must not be till the next Court-day after the Examinations are 
finish'd) to give in a Defensive Plea. 

If the Office, on admitting such Plea as relevant, find it necessary to 



METHODUS PROCEDENDO 299 

give a further Allegation in order to Support the Articles, to do it within 
seven days, and make Proof thereof within a fortnight ; and then no 
farther Pleadings, but the Cause to stand concluded and assign'd for 
Sentence the next Court-day. 

If there be not Proof sufficient in Law, the Defendant is to be dis- 
miss'd with his Costs. 

Appeal to be within fifteen Days to the Judges appointed by the 
King's Commission ; the Appellant depositing the Sum of ten Pounds, 
and making Oath that he will bond fide prosecute the same within 20 
days. A Copy thereupon of all the Proceedings in the said Cause shall 
be deliver'd to him (he being at the Charge of Copying) in order to 
their being transmitted under the Commissary's Seal, and attested to be 
true Copy by the Person acting as Register. 

The Register is to enter all Proceedings in a Book kept for that Pur- 
pose, and to preserve carefully all Original Processes, Articles, Decrees, 
&c. 



Instruments and other things referr'd to in the Method of 

Proceeding. 

N° 1. Citation. 

N. N. Reverendi in Christo Patris ac Domini Domini Edmundi, Per- 
missione Divina London' Episcopi, Commissarius legitime constitutus, 
Universis & singulis Clericis & Literatis quibuscunque in & per totam 

Provinciam ubilibet constitutis, Salutem. Vobis conjunctim & di- 

visim committimus ac firmiter injungendo mandamus, quatenus Citetis 

seu citari faciatis peremtorie P. P. parochise Rectorem sive Incum- 

bentem, quod legitime compareat coram nobis in Ecclesia de \oo.o(\ue / 

judiciali ibidem, die sexto aut post Citationem hujusmodi eidem P. P. 

in hac parte factam, certis Articulis, Capitulis, sive Interrogatoriis, meram 
Animae suae Salutem, morumque & excessuum suorum reformationem & 
correctionem concernentibus, & praesertim propter [the Crime] ei ob- 
jiciend' & ministrand' ulteriusque factur' & receptur' quod justum fuerit 
in hac parte sub poena Juris & Contemptus ; & quid in prsemissis feceri- 
tis nos debite certificetis una cum praesentibus. Dat. &c. [Commissary's 
Name and Seal to be set to this, and to every other Instrument in the 
Course of the Proceeding.] 

Indorsement : This Citation was personally serv'd on the within-named 
P. P. by shewing to him the Original under Seal, and at the same time 



300 APPENDIX A. 

delivering to him an English Note, containing the effect hereof, this 
Day of in the Year of our Lord by me A. B. 

Juratis fuit praefatus A. B. super veritate praemissorum Coram me 
N. N. Commissario. 

The Form of the English Note is to be thus : you are hereby Cited 
to appear at the Church of on the Day of before the 

Reverend Commissary, to answer to such Articles as shall then be 

objected to you. 

[The Apparitor's Name.] 

N° 2. Citation Viis & Modis. 

N. N. Reverendi in Christo Paths ac Domini Domini Edmundi Per- 
missione Divina London' Episcopi Commissarius legitime constitutus, 
Universis & Singulis Clericis & Literatis quibuscunque in & per totam 
Provinciam ubilibet constitutis, Salutem. Cum nos N. N. Com- 
missarius antedictus rite & legitime proceden' quendam P. P. Ecclesiae 

parochialis de Rectorem, ad diem, horas, locum & effectum sub- 

scriptos, subque modo & forma inferius descriptis, ad petitionem A. B. 

Tr . . TT , Promotoris Officii nostri in hac parte legitime assignati, 
If it be a Vol- r ° or 

untary Promo- au egantis eumdem P. P. alias per Mandatarium in hac 
ter, then Pro- parte legitime deputatum, animo & intentione eum 
motoris volun- personaliter citandi ad effectum infra scriptum Saepius 
tarn in hac diligenter quaesitum fuisse, ita tamen latitasse & in prae- 
parte * senti latitare, quominus personaliter apprehendi vel citari 

queat, prout Coram nobis debite in hac parte allegatum extitit, citand' 
& ad Judicium evocand' fore decreverimus justitia mediante ; vobis 
igitur Conjunctim & divisim Committimus ac firmiter injungendo man- 
damus, quatenus Citetis seu citari faciatis peremptorii prsefat' P. P. 
personaliter si sic citari vel apprendi poterit, & ad eum sic citand* 
tutus vobis pateat accessus ; alioquin publicae citationis edicto per affixio- 
nem praesentium hujusmodi in Valvis sive Foribus exterioribus Domus 
solitae habitationis dicti P. P. vel in Valvis sive Foribus exterioribus 

Ecclesiae parochialis de palam & publice in sua forma Originali 

aliquandiu proposit' veraque presentium hujusmodi Copia ibidem dimissa 
& relicta, aliisque viis, modis atque mediis legitimis, quibus melius aut 
efficacius de Jure quovismodo poteritis, ita quod hujusmodi nostra 
Citatio ad ejus sic citandi notitiam de verisimili pervenire valeat, 

Quod legitime compareat coram nobis in Ecclesia parochiali de 

locoque judiciali ibidem die die Mensis inter horas 



METHODUS PROCEDENDI. 301 

de justitia responsur' certis Articulis, Capitulis, sive Interrogatoriis, 
meram Animae suae Salutem Concernen' ulteriusque factur' & receptor' 
quod justum fuerit in hac parte, sub poena Juris & Contemptus et quid 
in praemissis feceritis nos debite" Certificetis una cum praesentibus. 
Dat' die Mensis Annoqz^? ; Dom. 

Indorsement : This Decree was duly executed by affixing the same 
for some time on the outward Door of the Dwelling-house or Habitation 

of the within-named P. P. or on the publick door of the Parish 

Church of and afterwards by leaving in the room thereof an 

Authentick Copy of the said Decree, the day of in the Year 

of our Lord 

Juratis fuit praefatus super veritate praemissorum, coram me 

N. N. 

N? 3. Forms of Articles. 

The General Preface to all Articles against Irregular Clergymen. 

In Dei Nomine Amen. Nos Reverendi in Christo Patris ac Domini 
Domini Edmundi Permissione Divina London' Episcopi Commissarius 
legitime constitutus. Tibi A. B. Clerico, [add here, the Place of which 
he is Incumbent] Articulos, Capitula, sive Interrogatoria omnia & 
singula, meram Animas tuae Salutem, morumque & Excessuum tuorum 

reformationem & correctionem concernentia, ad promotionem ob- 

jicimus & articulamur, conjunctim & divisim, prout sequitur. 

For Officiating without License. 

Imprimis. We Article and Object to you the said A. B. that you do 
know, believe, or have heard say, that by the 48 th Canon of the Con- 
stitutions Ecclesiastical, it is amongst other things provided, ordained, 
and decreed, as followeth. " That no Curate or Minister shall be per- 
mitted to serve in any place, without Examination and Admission of 
the Bishop of the Diocese, or Ordinary of the Place having episcopal 
Jurisdiction, in writing under his Hand and Seal." 

2. We Article and Object to you the said A. B. that notwithstanding 
the Premisses in the next precedent Article mention'd, You the said A. B. 
have on divers Sundays, or Lord's days, happening within the months 
of in the Year of our Lord and more particularly on Sunday 

the day of on all, some, or one of the said Lord's days or 

Sundays aforesaid, without Examination, or Admission, or Approbation 
of the Bishop of London in writing under his Hand and Seal, of your 
Honesty, Ability, and good Conformity to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the 



302 APPENDIX A. 

Church of England, presumed and taken upon you to serve the Cure of 
Souls of the Parishioners of the Parish of by reading the Prayers 

of the Church of England by Law Establish'd, and by Preaching of 
Sermons ; and performing other Duties ; in Contempt of the Laws, 
Canons and Constitutions ecclesiastical aforesaid. 

3. We Article and Object to you the said A. B. that by reason of the 
Premisses in the foregoing Articles deduced, you have incurred canoni- 
cal Punishment and Censure, and were and are by us and our Authority 
canonically to be punished. 

For marrying without Banns or License. 

Imprimis. We Article and Object, that you the said A. B. do know, 
believe, or have heard, that by the Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, 
and more especially by the 62 d Canon, it is among other things pro- 
vided, ordain'd, and decree'd, " That no Minister, upon pain of Suspen- 
sion per triennium ipse facto, shall celebrate Matrimony between any 
Persons, without a Faculty or License, except the Banns of Matrimony 
have been first publish'd three several Sundays or Holydays in the times 
of Divine Service in the Parish Churches where the said Parties dwell, 
according to the Book of Common Prayer." 

2. That notwithstanding the Premisses, you the said A. B. in the 
months of Anno Dom. have celebrated or rather Prophaned 
divers Marriages in the Parish Church aforesaid, and particularly upon 

between A. B. and C. D. without a Faculty or License in that 
behalf lawfully granted or obtain'd, or Banns of Matrimony first duly 
Publish'd ; in manifest contempt of the Laws, Canons, and Constitutions 
aforesaid, to the evil example of all good Christians. 

3. We Article and Object that all and singular the Premisses were 
and are true. 

4. We Article and Object that you the said A. B. by reason of the 
Premisses have incurr'd the Penalty in the Canons and Constitutions 
Ecclesiastical aforesaid mention'd and were and are to be suspended 
per triennium. 

For Neglect in Catechising. 

[This may be applied to the omitting any other Duties in the Church.] 

Imprimis, We Article and Object to you the said A. B. that you were 
and are a Minister in Holy Orders of Deacon and Priest, and for 
years at least have been and are Incumbent of the Parish Church of 
and during all the said time have had, and at present have, 



METHODUS PROCEDENDO 303 

the Cure of Souls of the Parishioners and Inhabitants of the said Parish 
of and for and as such a Person as in this Article is described, 

you the said A. B. have been and are commonly accounted, reputed, 
and taken. 

2. Item, We Article and Object to you the said A. B. that you know, 
believe, or have heard say, that by the Laws, Canons, and Constitutions 
Ecclesiastical of the Church of England, and especially by the 59 th Canon 
of the Canons and Constitutions aforesaid, it is, amongst other Things 
therein order'd and appointed, " That every Parson, Vicar, or Curate, 
upon every Sunday and Holy-day before Evening Prayers, shall half an 
Hour or more, examine and instruct the Youth and ignorant Persons of 
his Parish, in the Ten Commandments, the Articles of the Belief, and in 
the Lord's Prayer and shall diligently hear, instruct, and teach them 
the Catechism set forth in the Book of Common Prayer." 

3. We Article and Object, that notwithstanding the Premisses in the 
next precedent Article mention' d, and that you the said A. B. have 
been by the several Parishioners, divers times within the two years last 
past, requested to hear, instruct, and teach the Youth and ignorant 
Persons of the said Parish, the Catechism set forth in the Book of Com- 
mon Prayer, upon several Sundays and Holy-days within the time afore- 
said, you have, in contempt of the said Canon and Constitution, wilfully 
neglected your Duty herein, to the great Scandal of all good Christians. 

4. We Article and Object to you the said A. B. that by reason of the 
Premisses in the foregoing Articles mention'd and deduced, you have 
incurr'd Ecclesiastical Punishment and Censure, and were and are by us, 
and the Authority given to us, canonically to be punished and corrected. 

For Refusing to Bury. 
[The like, in case of denying or delaying to baptise, mutatis mutandis.] 

Imprimis, We Article and Object, that according to the 68 th Canon 
of the Constitutions Ecclesiastical, " Whatever Rector, Vicar, or Curate 
of any Parish shall refuse or delay to bury any Corpse that is brought 
to the Church or Church-yard (convenient Warning being given him 
thereof before) shall be suspended for the Space of three Months." 

2. Item, We Article and Object, that, notwithstanding the Premisses, 
you the said A. B. having convenient Warning thereof, did on the 
Day of in the year refuse and deny to bury the Corpse of 

C. D. a deceas'd Parishioner, and did not bury the same, but did refuse 
to give the Corpse of the said C. D. Christian Burial, by reading the 



304 APPENDIX A. 

Form prescrib'd in the Book of Common Prayer for the Burial of the 
Dead, to the great Neglect of your Duty and the Scandal of the Chris- 
tian Profession. 

3. We Article and Object to you the said A. B. that by reason of the 
Premisses, you are and ought to be canonically punish'd and corrected. 

For Immoralities of Several Kinds. 
* * * # * * *i 

That in the Months of April, May, June, July, August, Anno Dom. 
in all, some, or one of the said Months, you the said A. B. have 
been very much addicted and given to prophane Cursing and Swearing ; 
and have several times in a most wicked, prophane, and impious Manner 
spoke, use, and uttered several wicked and execrable Oaths and Curses 
within the Town and Village of and this is true, publick and 

notorious ; and thereof there was and is a publick Voice, Fame, and 
Report, in the said Town and Village. 

That in the Months of April, May, June, July, August, Anno Dom. 
in all, or some, or one of the said Months, you the said A. B. 
did resort to and frequent divers Taverns and Ale-houses, and did 
remain in such Taverns and Ale-houses several Hours together, and at 
very unseasonable Times : And that you the Said A. B. during the said 
time, was much addicted and given to excessive Drinking, and have been 
several times very much fudled and drunk within the said Town and 
Village ; and thereof there was and is a publick Voice, Fame, and Report, 
in the said Village. 

N. B. One or other of these Forms of Articles, with very little varia- 
tion, will serve for any Case not expressly mentioned ; adding to these, 
severally, and to others of the like kind, the <$ h Head of the Articles for 
Neglecting to Catechise. 

N° 4. Compulsory for Witnesses. 

N. N. Reverendi in Christo Patris ac Domini Domini Edmundi Per- 
missione Divina London' Episcopi Commissarius legitime constitutus, 
Universis & singulis Clericis & Literatis quibuscunque in & per totam 

Provinciam de ubilibet constitutis, Salutem, Cum nos in quodam 

negotio Officii sive Correctionis quod coram nobis in Judicio inter A. B. 
parochiae Promotorem dicti Officii ac partem hujusmodi Negotium 

1 Passages relating to other immoralities are omitted. 



METHODUS PROCEDENDO 305 

promoven' ex una, & P. P. partem contra quam idem Negotium promo- 
vetur partibus ex altera, vertitur & pendet indecisum, rite & legitime 
proceden' quosdam A. B. C. D. testes (ut asseritur) valde necessarios ad 
proband' contenta in quisbusdam Articulis alias ex parte dicti A. B. in 
eodem negotio datis, ministratis & admissis, qui requisiti, oblatisqz^/ eas 
viaticis expensis, venire recusabunt, nisi Compulsorium ad diem horas 
locum & effectum subscriptas subqz^ / modo & forma inferius descriptis 
ad petitionem partis praefati A. B. Citand' & ad Judicium evocand' fore 
decreverimus (Justitia Mediante ;) Vobis igitur conjunctim & divisim 
committimus, ac firmiter injungendo mandamus, quatenus Citetis seu 
Citari faciatis peremptorie praefator' A. B. C. D. quod compareant & 

quilibet coram [compareant coram] nobis in Ecclesia Parochiali 

locoque judiciali ibidem die Mensis inter horas ejusdem diei, 

juramentum a Testibus praestari Solitum & Consuetum subitur' & praesti- 
tur' ac Testimonium Veritati quam in hac parte noverint perhibitur', 
ulteriusqz^/ factur' & receptur' quod justum fuerit in hac parte, sub poena 
Juris & Contemptus, & quid in Praemissis feceritis nos debite Certificetis 
una Cum Praesentibus Datis die Mensis Anno Domini 

Indorsement : This Compulsory was personally serv'd on the within- 
named A. B. C. D. by shewing to them and each of them this Original 
under Seal, and delivering to them, and each of them, at the same time, 
an English note containing the effects thereof, this Day of in 

the year of our Lord by me 

Jurat' fuit praefatus super veritati praemissorum coram me N. N. 

Commissario. 

The Form of the English Note is to be thus : 

You are hereby cited to appear on the Day of in the Church 
of before the Reverend Commissary, to give your Evidence 

in a Cause of Correction, instituted against the Reverend Mr. 
Minister of 

[The Apparitor's Name.] 

N° 5. Sentence. 

In Dei Nomine Amen. Auditis, visis, & intellectis ac plenerie & mature 
discussis per nos N. N. Reverendi in Christo Patris ac Domini Domini 
Edmundi Permissione Divina London' Episcopi Commissarium legitime 
Constitutum, Meritis & Circumstantiis cujusdam Negotii Officii sive 
Correctione Morum quod coram nobis in Judicio inter A. B. parochiae 

20 



306 APPENDIX A. 

Promotum officii nostri & partem dictum negotium promoven' ex una, 
& P. P. Clericum Rectorem Rectoriae & Ecclesiae parochialis de 
partem contra quern idem Negotium promovetur partibus ex altera 
vertitur & pendet indecis. rite & legitime procedend' parteque dicti A. B. 
Sententiam ferri & justitiam fieri ; parte vero P. P. [Here the Judge is 
to say, pars P.P. quid petis, and according to his Prayer to fill up the 
Blank, either (Usually understood to be an acquiescence in the Sentence 
the Judge shall give) Justitiam, or (an intention to appeal) Sententiam] 
instanter respective postulan' & peten' Rimatoque primitus per nos toto 
& integro processu alias coram nobis in hujusmodi negotio habito ac facto 
& diligentur recensito, servatisque per nos de jure in hac parte servandis, 
ad nostrae Sentential Definitivae sive nostri flnalis Decreti probationem 
in hujusmodo negotio ferend' sic duximus procedend' fore, & procedimus 
in hunc qui sequitur modum : Quia per Acta, inactitata, deducta, 
allegata, exhibita, proposita & probata in hujusmodi negotio, comperimus 
luculenter & invenimus, partem praefati A. B. Intentionem suam in qui- 
busdam Articulis, Capitulis sive Interrogatoriis ex parte sua in hoc 
negotio datis ministrat' & admissus, aliisque propositis & Exhibitis 
deductam, quae quidem Articulos, Capitula sive Interrogatoria alioqua 
proposita & Exhibita pro his lectis & infertis habemus & haberi volumus 
sufficienter & ad plenum quod infra pronunciand' fundasse & probasse, 
nihilque saltern effectuale ex parte aut per partem praefati P. P. fuisse & 
esse in hac parte exceptum, deductum, allegatum, exhibitum, propositum, 
probatum, aut confessatum, quod intentionem ejusdem A. B. in hac parte 
elideret seu quomodolibet enervaret : Idcirco Nos. N. N. Judex ante- 
dictus, Christi nomine primitus invocato ac ipsum solum Deum Oculis 
nostris praeponentes & habentes, d£que & cum consilio Reverendorum 
Virorum C. D. & E. F. cum quibus in hac parte communicavimus mature- 
que deliberavimus, praedictum P. P. clericum tempore articulato fuisse & 
in praesente esse Rectorem Rectoriae & Ecclesiae parochialis de ac 

temporibus & diebus in hac [parte] articulatis [This to be varied as the 
case stands] officium suum ministeriale & coram animarum parochia- 
norum suorum infra parochiam prasdict' inhabitan' saepius neglexisse, seu 
saltern secundum Leges Canones & Constitutiones Ecclesiasticas in ea 
parte editas, provisas & promulgatas, non perfecisse, juxtas probationes 
legitimas coram nobis in hac parte judicialiter habitas & factas, pronuncia- 
mus, decernimus & declaramus, praefatum igitur P. P. pro ejus excessibus 
& delictis debite & canonice ac juxta Juris in ea parte exigentiam in 
praemissis corrigend' & puniend' nee non ab Officio & Beneficio suis per 
spatium suspended fore debere pronunciamus, decernimus & 



METHODUS PROCEDENDI. 307 

declaramus sique per Praesentes suspendimus, & pro sic Suspenso in 
facie Ecclesiae palam & publice, denunciand' declarand' & publicand' 
fore etiam pronunciamus, decernimus & declarimus necnon praefatum 
P. P. in expensis legitimis ex parte & per partem A. B. in hujusmodi 
negotio factis & faciendis eidemque seu parte suae solvend' condemnand' 
fore & condemnare debere etiam pronunciamus, decernimus & declara- 
mus, sique per praesentes condemnamus, easdemque expensas ad 
Summam taxamus, dictumque P. P. ad solvend* seu solvi faciend' realiter 
& cum effectu praenominato A. B. seu parti suae dictam summam prae- 
taxatam citra vel ante sub poena majoris excommunicationis 

Sententiae monend' fore decernimus ; Quam quidem excommunicationis 
Sententiam in eundem P. P. non solventem summam praetaxatam sub 
modo & forma praedictis, Nos Judex antedictus [ex nunc prout ex tunc 
& ex tunc prout ex nunc] ferimus & promulgamus in hiis Scriptis prae- 
fatumque P. P. in casu praedict' pro . . . sive Excommunicato in facie 
Ecclesiae palam & publice denunciand' & declarand' fere decernimus 
per hanc nostram Sententiam Defmitivam sive hoc nostrum finale Decre- 
tum, quam sive quod ferimus & promulgamus in hiis Scriptis. 

N.N. 

N° 6. Appeal 

In Dei Nomine Amen. Coram vobis N.N. Reverendi in Christo Patris 
ac Domini Domini Edmundi Permissione Divina London' Episcopi 
Commissario legitime constitute, Ego P. P. Clericus, Incumbens, Eccle. 
Paroch. de animo appellandi, deque nullitate & iniquitate omnium 

& singulorum infra Scriptorum aeque principaliter querelandi, dico, 
allego, & in hiis Scriptis in Jure propono, Quod licet Ego praefatus 
P. P. per hos annos ult' Elapsos fuerim & sim Clericus Sacris 

Diaconatus & Presbyteratus Ordinibus insignitus, ac dictae Ecclesiae 
parochialis rite & legitime approbatus, & licentiatus, & admissus, ac 
Curae Animarum parochianorum sive Inhabitantium de praedict' 

per totum & omne tempus praedict' diligenter secundum talentum 
mihi a Deo datum inservierim, vixerimque sobrie & honeste, nihiloque 
commiserim aut omiserim, propter quod ad aliquod Forum Ecclesiasti- 
cum trahi, aut a Cura Animarum Parochianorum sive Inhabitantium 

dictae parochiae de sive executione Officii ministerialis dictae paro- 

chiae de amoveri aut privari debuerim aut debeam, praefatus tamen 

N. N. Reverendi in Christo Patris ac Domini Domini Edmundi 
permissione Divina London' Episcopi Commissarius, Juris & Judici- 
orum ordine in hac parte minime observato, sed penitus spreto & 



308 APPENDIX A. 

postposito, de facto cum de Jure non potuit neque debuit (ejus Rev- 
erentia semper salva) utcunque procedens, Articulos quosdam prse- 
tensos, Capitula, sive Interrogatoria, vel quandam praetensam materiam 
omnino, inconcluden' & de jure non admittend' ad petitionem . . . 
admisit, ac Testes de & super Articulis, Capitulis, sive Interrogatoriis, 
vel materia praetensa praedict' paribus nullitate & iniquitate recepit ac 
sententiam quandam praetensam in Scriptis (uti praetenditur) defmiti- 
vam, omnino tamen nullam, & de Jure prorsus invalidam pro parte & 
in favorem dicti A. B. ac contra & adversus me praefatum P. P. sine 
probationibus sufficien' & de jure in ea parte requisitis, ac contra omnem 
Juris ordinem, de facto cum de Jure non potuit neque debuit, legit, tulit 
& promulgavit, per quam inter alia me praefatum P. P. ab executione 
Officii mei Ministerialis, sive Cura animarum parochianorum sive Inhabi- 

tantium Ecclesiae parochialis de praedict' sine aliqua causa saltern 

legitima (ejus Reverentia semper salva) utcunque omnino monuit, 
jussit, & mandavit, & mihi ad inserviend' curse Animarum Parochiano- 
rum sive Inhabitantium praedict' sine Causae cognitione, saltern juxta 
Juris in hac parte exigentiam, expresse interdixit, meque ab Officio 

& Beneficio meis per spatiam suspendend' fore decrevit, & me 

praefatum P. P. in expensis praetensis litis ex parte dicti A. B. factis, 
condemnavit, easdemqz/<? ; expensas ad summam minis excessivam & 
immoderatam taxavit, in praejudicium meum non modicum & gravamen. 
Unde Ego praefatus P. P. sentiens me ex praemissis Gravaminibus, 
Nullitatibus, Qui iniquitatibus, Injustitiis, & Injuriis, aliisq&<? / actis, factis 
& gestis, iniquis, ex praetenso processu praefati Reverendi Commissarii 
Colligibilibus, indebite praegravari, ac loesum, gravatum & injuriatum 
fuisse & esse, ac juste timens me in futurum [invidiis] loedi & graviari 
posse ; ab eisdem & eorum quolibet, & praesertim ab admissione quo- 
rundam praetensorum Articulorum, Capitulorum, sive Interrogatiorum, 
contra me per praefat' A. B. dat' exhibit' & ministrator' a dicta prae- 
tensa Sententia ex parte dicti A. B. ut praefertur, lecta, lata, & pro- 
mulgata, & a Condemnatione me P. P. in expensis ex parte A. B. uti 
praetenditur, factis & faciendis, a minis excessiva & immoderata taxa- 
tione earundem praetensarum expensarum, & a Monitione praetensa in 
me fact' ad desistend* ab executione Officii mei Ministerialis in 
per spatium ac ab omnibus & singulis exinde sequen* ad [Insert 

here the Names of the Judges of Appeal appointed by his Majesty's 
Commission] in hiis scriptis appello, deque ; nullitate & iniquitate omnium 
■& singulorum praemissorum aeque principaliter dico & querelor, [aposto- 
16que ;] peto primo, secundo & tertio, instanter, instantius, & instantissime 



A COLONIAL CLERGYMAN'S LICENSE. 309 

me mihi edi, dari, fieri, tradi, & deliberari cum effectu ; & protestor 
quod non sunt quindecem dies adhuc plene elapsi, ex quo Gravamina 
praedicta erant mihi illata. Protestor denique ; de corrigendo & refor- 
mando has meas Appellationem & Querelam ipsasq#<?/ in meliorem & 
competentiorem formam redigendo, deque intimando easdem omnibus 
& singulis quibus Jus exigit in hac parte intimari, juxta Juris exigentiam 
& Juris peritorum consilium, prout moris merit. 

Interposita fuit hujusmodi Appelatio die mensis anno 

Domini per praefatum P. P. qui Appelavit, Apostolos petiit, cae- 

teroque ; fecit & exercuit in omnibus & per omnia, prout in suprascripto 
Appelationis Protocollo continetur; prsesentibus tunc & ibidem, una 
cum me Notario Publico Subscripto 

Testibus Ita Testor 

Registarius. 

N. B. An Appeal may as properly be interpos'd before a Notary 
Public, as in the Presence of the Judge, with this Alteration only in the 
Beginning thereof, viz. 

In Dei nomine Amen. Coram vobis Notario Publico, publicaque 
& authentica persona, ac Testibus fide dignis hie prsesentibus, Ego 
P. P. &c. 

VII. A TYPICAL LICENSE FROM THE BISHOP OF LONDON 
TO A COLONIAL CLERGYMAN. 

Hazard's Pennsylvania Register, Vol. III. 354. For the form of the 
Commission to a Commissary see Appendix A, No. vi., pp. 294, 295. 

Edmund, by divine permission, Bishop of London, to our beloved, 
in Christ, Robert Jenney, Dr. of Laws, Clerk. Greeting. 

We do hereby give and grant to you, in whose fidelity, morals, learn- 
ing, sound doctrine, and diligence we do fully confide, our license and 
authority to continue only during our pleasure, to perform the ministerial 
office in Christ Church in Philadelphia, in the Colony of Pennsylvania, 
in reading the Common Prayer, and performing other ecclesiastical 
duties belonging to the said office, according to the form prescribed by 
the Book of Common Prayer, made and published by the authority of 
parliament, and the canons and constitutions in that behalf lawfully 
established and promul[ga]ted, and not otherwise or in any other man- 
ner, (and you having first before us subscribed the articles, and taken 
the oaths which in this case are required to be subscribed and taken.) 



310 APPENDIX A. 

In witness whereof we have caused our Episcopal Seal to be hereto 
affixed, dated at Whitehall, the 31st day of March in the year of our 
Lord 1742 and in the nineteenth year of our translation. 

Edmund (L. S.) London. 

VIII. LETTER FROM A. SPENCER TO BISHOP SHERLOCK 
STATING THE RESULT OF HIS MISSION TO THE AMERI- 
CAN COLONIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOUNDING PUBLIC 
OPINION ON THE QUESTION OF INTRODUCING BISHOPS. 

From the Manuscripts in the Fulham Library. 

. June 12, 1749. 

My Lord, 

I made it my business to converse with Several Merchants and 
Gentlemen of Philadelphia and New York about what your Lordship 
mentioned to me. Their chief objection against a Suffragan Bishop is, 
That he will be invested with such a Power as would be inconsistent 
with the Privileges of the People in those Parts and even interfere with 
the Rights of the several Proprietaries. 

I replied, that I believed that he would have no more Power over 
the Laity, than what the Commissaries in the Colonies had already ; by 
that the Advantages of having a Suffragan Bishop would be so great, 
that I could not think any man of Piety and virtue, who considered 
them, would oppose so laudable a Design. Being desired to give my 
Reasons I proceeded thus, — That a Suffragan Bishop being on the 
Spot could be fully satisfied whether the Lives and Conversation of the 
Persons desiring to be admitted to the Ministry, were in Fact as men- 
tioned in their Recommendatory Letters ; and that he would be such a 
check on their future Behaviour, as to deter them from those gross 
Irregularities, which the Laity are too apt to charge them with. 

In a Word, I found the Gentlemen I conversed with unanimously 
to agree that if the Affair was on such a Footing, as I had endeavored 
to represent it, they would be so far from opposing such a Design, that 
they would rather heartily concur with your Lordship in promoting so 
good a Scheme. 

I shall always think myself [happy] in receiving and obeying your 
Lordship's Commands. If, therefore, my Lord, you think proper to 
honour me with any more Orders, your Lordship may direct to 
Mr. Richard Burgiss in Rochester where I may be [found] till the 
middle of next month. 



BISHOP SHERLOCK'S CIRCULAR LETTER, 1730. 311 

IX. EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT OF A COMMITTEE FOR 
PREVENTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF BISHOPS IN THE 
COLONIES. 

From a Pamphlet in the Fulham Library. 

It was reported, & generally believed that there was a design on foot 
to Erect two New Bishoprics, in the West Indies, this the Deputies 
thought, and have since been well assured, would be very disagreeable 
to many of our Friends in those parts & highly Prejudicial to the Inter- 
est of several of the Colonies. They therefore Appointed two of their 
Body to wait on Some of his Majesty's principal servants, and to 
acquaint them with their Sentiments on this Subject, which was accord- 
ingly Done [this was in 1749], & the Persons deputed were very civilly 
received, & whatever the Event May be, the Part the Deputation has 
Acted has been so kindly taken abroad, that the House of Representa- 
tives of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, have returned them their 
Thanks, in a Message signed by their speaker. . . . 

The Committee this year [1750] again Renewed their utmost En- 
deavors to prevent the introducing a Vicar General, or Bishop into 
America, & hitherto the Design and Attempt of that kind has not 
Succeeded. 



X. BISHOP SHERLOCK'S CIRCULAR LETTER TO THE 
COMMISSARIES, OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1750, WITH SOME 
HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED REPLIES. 

Chandler's Johnson, Appendix, 166, 167, and the Fulham Manuscripts. 

1. 

Rev. Sir, 

I have no excuse to make for the silence I have observed towards 
you and the other Commissaries in the plantations, but only this, that I 
waited in hopes of giving you an account of a settlement of Ecclesiastical 
affairs for the Colonies, in some shape or other. I have been far from 
neglecting the affairs of your Churches, and have been soliciting the 
establishment of one or two bishops to reside in proper parts of the 
plantations, and to have the conduct and direction of the whole. I am 
sensible for myself that I am capable of but little service to those dis- 
tant Churches, and I am persuaded that no Bishop residing in England 
ought to have, or willingly to undertake this province. As soon as I 



312 APPENDIX A. 

came to the See of London, I presented a Memorial to the King upon 
this subject ; which was referred to his principal officers of state to be 
considered. But so many difficulties were started, that no report was 
made to his Majesty. After this I presented a petition to the King in 
Council of like purport. His Majesty's journey to Hanover left no room 
to take a resolution upon an affair that deserves to be maturely weighed. 
This lies before the King and Council, and will, I hope, be called for 
when his Majesty returns to England, this is a short state of the case. 

You will see by this I am not yet able to say anything as to the effect 
of these applications : but as in all events a new patent must be granted, 
either to the Bishop of London, or to a new Bishop, I desire to be in- 
formed by you how the jurisdiction has been carried on during the time 
that the late Bishop of London acted under a patent from the Crown. 
I know the jurisdiction so granted extends only to the Clergy ; but with 
respect to this there seems to me to be some defects in the patent. 
But I will not write them out to forestall your judgement, but shall be 
much obliged to you for any observations upon this head which your ex- 
perience has furnished you with ; which I shall endeavor to make use of 
for the service of the Churches abroad. 

I am, Sir, Yours, &c. 

2. 

Reply of Commissary Garden of South Carolina, to Sherlock's 
Circular Letter, mainly relating to the Trial of George 
Whitefield. 

From the Manuscripts in the Fulham Library. 
My Lord 

I have received the honour of your Lordship's Letter of 20 th 
Sept br last past, in which you are pleased to mention the several steps 
you had taken in soliciting the Establishment of one or two Bishops to 
reside in proper Parts of & govern the Episcopal Churches of England 
in America ; & also the uncertain State in which that Affair still depends. 
Your Lordship is also pleased to desire me to inform you, how the 
Jurisdiction was carried on during the time that the late Bishop of Lon- 
don acted under a Patent from the Crown ; & also of any Observations, 
which my experience may have furnished me with, respecting some 
Defects which your Lordship apprehends in the said Patent, even as 
restricted only to the Clergy. 

The Episcopal Churches in America, are greatly beholden to your 



GARDEN'S REPLY TO SHERLOCK. 313 

Lordship, for your Pious & Assiduous endeavors to obtain for them so 
essential a part of their Being, as that of a Bishop or Bishops personally 
presiding over, & governing them. In their present Condition they are 
certainly without a parallel in the Christian Church, in any age or coun- 
try from the beginning. 

When my late Lord of London, sent me his Commission appointing 
me his Commissary, pursuant to his Patent from the Crown, he there- 
with also sent me some printed Papers, intitled Methodus Procedendi 
contra Clericos Irregulares in Plantationibus Americanis ; (which doubt- 
less your Lordship will find among the records of your See) containing, 
first, his Lordship's Appointment of a Commissary ; 2 dly his Directions to 
the Commissary, 3 dly The Method of Proceeding &c 4 thly Instruments, & 
other Things, referrd to in the Method of Proceeding ; being Extracts 
from Clark's praxis, Oughton's Ordo Judiciorum &c. Pursuant to the 
said Directions, I always held an Annual Visitation of the Clergy of this 
Province, on the 2 nd Wednesday after Easter-day at Charlestown ; & took 
that Opportunity punctually to comply with all the other Particulars of 
his Lordship's 5 th & following Directions. 

Whether any of his Lordship's Commissaries in the other Colonies, 
ever Proceded against any irregular Clergymen I know not ; but as to 
myself I proceeded against 4, viz!, Wintely, Morrit, Fulton, & Whitefield. 
The two Former chose to resign their Livings rather than stand their 
Trials ; & the two Latter I suspended ; the one (Fulton) from his Office 
& Benefice ; & the other (Whitefield) only from his Office, being a Vaga- 
bond Clergyman having no Benefice to be suspended from. 

In all these proceedings (my Lord) I did not observe any Defect in 
the Royal Patent, but several Difficulties occurred & perplexed me with 
respect to the Laws. On Process instituted against Whitefield, for Trans- 
gressing the 38 th Canon of the Church, or as a Revolter after Subscrip- 
tion, he exhibited in writing recusatio Judicis or a refusal of me for his 
Judge ; alledging for Causes, that I was his Enemy, & had printed and 
preached against him with great Bitterness & Enmity ; and referring the 
Same to Six Arbiters, Three of whom he named on his part, who were 
two Independents, & one french Calvinist, & all of them his Zealous 
Admirers. On this Event several Difficulties occurr'd as viz? First, 
Whether, as the Law only prescribes probi viri i.e. as explain'd, indiffe- 
rentes & docti, for arbiters, I might not reject those named, as non indif- 
ferentes, for the reasons above mention'd. (2 dly ) Admitting that I had 
taken no exception to the Three persons nam'd, but had nam'd Three 
others on my part to join them for Arbiters, put the Case (as it cer- 



314 APPENDIX A. 

tainly would have turn'd out) of their Coming to no agreement or Con- 
clusion, what then was to be done? or what was to become of the 
principal Cause. The Laws are silent as to such a Case, nor do I find it 
either put or resolv'd by Clark, Oughton, Conset, or any other. I could 
neither see nor be advised, that it was in my power to proceed in Case 
of their non Agreement, & so the Cause instituted must have dropt, & 
Whitefield, escaped without Censure. Again (3 dly ) supposing the Arbi- 
ters had agreed and given Judgment against me, who in that Case 
should be Judge in the Cause instituted? I find this Query put by 
the above nam'd Authors, but not otherwise resolv'd than by a dicunt 
aliqui ; arbitri recusationis : And this again Queried, quo Jure? & so 
the point left moot or undecided. Amidst these Difficulties, and for 
reasons inserted at length in the Proceedings transmitted to my late 
Lord of London, I repell'd his Recusation ; on which he interposed 
an Appeal, to the Lords named in the Royal Patent, & had the same 
granted him ; but which he either wilfully or ignorantly neglected to 
Prosecute until the Juratory Term assaign'd, viz* the space of Twelve 
Months was expired, & then the Process against him was carried on 
here. Witnesses were Examined and Sentence of Suspension from his 
Office was pronounced, & still stands in Force against him. — But this 
Sentence having had no effect upon him for his Reformation and Sub- 
mission, I should have long since proceeded, pursuant to the Canon, 
to that of Excommunication, but for a Defect in the Law, which would 
have rendered it as ineffectual as the other, viz!, that the Writ de Ex- 
communicato capiendo could not be issued against him here, because the 
Statutes of Queen Eliza b ' h on which that Writ is grounded, do not 
extend to America. 

These my Lord, were the Difficulties which occurr'd to me, in the 
Execution of my late Lord of Londons Jurisdiction in this Province. 
And I am firmly of Opinion, that if they are not some way or other 
removed, a Commissary's Office or Authority will be of little avail 
against any Irregularities of the Clergy. For, First, as it will be easy for 
any irregular Clergyman to except against the Commissary for his Judge 
by alledging Enmity, specially on a Prosecution ex Officio Mero, so nei- 
ther will it be a difficult matter for him, to name Two or Three persons 
for Arbiters, who will stand it aught against the Commissary, as an unfit 
person for his Judge, and so by a disagreement of the Arbiters, Suspend 
the Arbitration without decision, & consequently, as far as I can per- 
ceive, defeat the whole process. Or (2 d ! y ) In case the Arbiters decide 
against the Commissary, the Law not providing who shall succeed for 



GARDEN TO GIBSON, 174^ 315 

Judge to carry on the Process, it must therefore also of course drop & 
come to nothing. 

Concerning dilapitation either of Churches or Parsonage Houses, I 
had no occasion to inquire, for by a particular Law of this Province the 
Clergy are exempted from that charge which is defray d partly by the 
Publick & partly by the Parishioners. But whether, had there been oc- 
casion, I could have carried on a Process for dilapitation I am doubt- 
ful ; the Patent not being so explicit on that head, & seeming rather to 
confine the Authority to the inquirend' de moribus. — But it is high time 
to put an end to this long Epistle containing all I can offer in answer to 
your Lordship's ; & therefore humbly craving your Blessing & Protec- 
tion, I remain 

My Lord 

Your Lordship's most 
dutiful Son & Obed* Humble Serv* 
So Caro* A Garden 

Charlestown Feby 17 i 3t 1750. 

3- 

Commissary Garden to Bishop Gibson, January 28, 1741. 

From the Manuscripts in the Fulham Library. 

I have herewith transmitted to your Lordship, an authentick Copy 
of my farther & final Proceedings against Mr. Whitefield, by w ch I have 
suspended him from his Office pursuant to the 38 th Canon. I had kept 
the Court on regular Adjournments for five months after the expiration 
of the Juratory Term, waiting for some Order or other in the Affair. 
But understanding by your Lordship's Letter, that Whitefield had 
deserted his Appeal (notwithstanding his solemn oath, in open Court, 
bona fide to prosecute it) I saw it my Duty to proceed to a definitive Sen- 
tence, w ch accordingly I have done ; & w ch if the Lords Appellees ap- 
prove not, they may annul ; & either way the affair will be at an end as 
far as I can carry it to any effect on this side of the Water. 

I have wrote your Lordship so fully on the Subject of the unruly Man, 
& the Prosecution I have now finished, in my former Letters, that I have 
nothing farther to add save only that I could have wished, that the Coun- 
cil your Lordship employed had, on the Expiration of the Juratory Term, 
transmitted a proper certificate from the Offices, that Whitefield had 
deserted his appeal ; w ch (if I am rightly informed) is the Method in 
Cases of appeals in Civil Matters from America, and would not have 
been denied them. 



316 APPENDIX A. 

4- 

Replies of the Two Leading Episcopal Clergymen of Boston to 
Bishop Sherlock's Circular Letter. 

From the Manuscripts in the Fulham Library. 



Rev. Timothy Cutler, Rector of Christ Church, to the Bishop of 

London. 

April 24, 1 75 1. 

Your Lordship's Letter of September 19 th containing a Copy of a 
general Letter from your Lordship to the Commissaries of our late Right 
Reverend Diocesan, I received just at the end of February last. ... I 
doubt I can relate nothing in the Jurisdiction exercised here during the 
time the late Bishop of London acted under a Patent from the Crown. 
Once our Commissary went to New London, upon some business about 
the late reverend Mr. Morris : but Mr. Morris voluntarily ended all by 
quitting the Place. The Commissary also went to Newbury upon some 
Difficulties about a new Church there : but there was no formal Hearing, 
nor is there any Issue. The unhappy Case of Mr. Roe belonging to the 
Chapel [King's Chapel] might have had a formal Consideration if he 
had not immediately departed to England. And this quashed the Con- 
sideration of another affair relating to him, which his Lordship referred 
to the Cognizance of y e Commissary of South Carolina, to which Mr. 
Roe was ordered to repair. As to that of Mr. Whitefield judicially con- 
sidered by that Commissary, your Lordship may have a perfect account 
from him at your pleasure. I can add no more upon this head, than 
that upon the Commissaries' call, there have been annual meetings of 
the Clergy, mainly taken up in relating the State of our Parishes, and in 
consulting and advising one another. And I cannot suppose that what 
I have mentioned respecting New England hath raised any uneasy 
Speculations or Remarks among our Dissenters. 

******* 

I have, my Lord, with several of my Brethren, subjoined to the Pro- 
posals of sending Bishops, one or more, to reside in America, our humble 
Opinion of that affair ; and beg leave to add further what follows : 

That in all Probability, this Objection, tho' not openly avow'd, yet 
not very latent, outweighs all the rest, That the Church of England grow- 
ing very much in its imperfect State, would much more grow, compleated 



CANER TO SHERLOCK, 1731. 317 

by the Residence of a Bishop ; that our increase would be out of the 
Societies of the Dissenters, perhaps to the breaking up of some of them, 
or to their greater Burden in supporting of them ; that these Colleges 
would be Nurseries of Episcopal Clergymen; That many Churchmen 
scattered throughout almost all our Towns, but very much concealed for 
the sake of a quieter and more agreeable Subsistence among their neigh- 
bors, might take heart to shew themselves ; and that civil Preferments 
would not be so confin'd as they are at present. 

******* 

Wherever Bishops are placed in America, we ought all to thank God 
for it. But I lay myself very low for your Lordship's pardon, [ ] of a 
few Remarks upon Barring the Settlement of Bishops in places where 
the Government is in the hands of Dissenters as in New England &c. 

That in these Places, the Members of the Church, and the Church 
itself is peculiarly injured ; and there we eminently need a Bishop to 
appear in our Favor, and upon Occasion to represent our Case 
home. 

That universal experience tells us, That the nearer the Church is to 
Dissenters, the most it prevails, their Prejudices wear away, misrepre- 
sentations are taken off, or prevented, People better know what the 
Church is, and better esteem it. This is evident from the monstrous 
Ideas of our Church in our distant Country Towns, which have no place 
in those bordering on us. 



Rev. Henry Caner, Rector of King's Chapel, to the Bishop of 
London. 

From the Manuscripts in the Fulham Library. 

May 6, 1751. 

I had the Honour of your Lordship's Letter of the 19 th September 
last, with a Copy inclosed of one written to the late Bishop of London's 
Commissaries : In which your Lordship required the Information of 
your Clergy in these Parts " how the Jurisdiction has been carried on 
during the Time that the late Bishop of London acted under a Patent 
from the Crown." As I have never seen a Copy of the late Bishop's 
Patent nor even of the Instructions given to his Commissary in this 
District it is impossible for me to say anything on the Subject. Indeed 
it has been generally apprehended here, that the late Commissary had 
no Authority to act at all, as I am told he never qualified himself, by 



318 APPENDIX A. 

exhibiting his Commission to the Governor, or other proper Officer, and 
by taking Oath before such Officer for the due Execution of his Trust 
which I think the Laws here require of every Person in cases of this or 
a like Nature. . . . 

[Caner, like Cutler (see above, p. 317), objects to any concession 
whereby no bishops would be sent to New England ; but is willing to 
concede that their jurisdiction shall not extend to the laity.] 



Reply of Dr. Jenney, Commissary of Pennsylvania, to Sherlock's 
Circular Letter. 

From the Manuscripts in the Fulham Library. 

Dated at Philadelphia May 23, 1751. 
May it please your Lordship 

It was the 15 of this Month before I had the Honor to receive 
your L d ships Letter by Mr. Craig, dated at London y e 20 th of Sep tbr 1750, 
wherein your L d ship condescends to acquaint me with your Endeavors 
to settle y e Ecclesiastical Affairs of y e Colonies, particularly your Appli- 
cation to his Majesty for y e Establishment of two Bishops, which lies still 
before y e Council undetermined. 

Your L d ship commands me to inform you how y e Jurisdiction has 
been carried on for y e Time past, of which I am afraid my Account will 
not be very aggreable. The patent of y e late B p did not seem to justify 
his Commissary in any Judicial Proceeding: 1 The Laity laughed at it, 
& y e Clergy seemed to dispise it, nor did there appear at Home a Dis- 
position to shew any Regard to it : The Commissary was no otherwise 
regarded there than to be made y e Instrument of conveying Letters, 
Books &c to y e Missionaries, as he lives conveniently for that purpose in 
y e Chief place of Commerce where y e Ships from & for London are for 
y e most part only to be found. One Instance of y e Laity's Contempt of 
my Commission I have found in two gentlemen (one a Lawyer) who 
insulted me most rudely for not condemning a Clergyman unheard, & 
refusing to send to y e hon ble Society their charge against him without 
giving him an Opportunity (which he earnestly requested) of justifying 
himself against it. Your L d ship observes that y e B p of Londons Juris- 
diction was by y e Patent extended only to y e Clergy : But even y e Clergy 
seemed not to take much Notice of it. One has given me under his 

1 Cf. Commissary Garden of South Carolina on this head, above, p. 313. 



JENNEY TO SHERLOCK, 1751- 319 

Hand that my Commission from y e B p was far from being unexception- 
able : Another spoke of it with such a sneer as plainly Discovered a 
Contempt : Both of these were in my District, but one of them is now 
dead. Besides y e Clergy Settled here we have some Ministers whom we 
may call Vagabonds having come without License or appointed Settle- 
ment. There are also some who come hither for their Health (chiefly 
from y e hotter Climates) Some of these are exceeding faulty in their 
Behaviour, & some deistical both in their preaching & Conversation. 
And although many of these who do so exceedly misbehave do not 
belong to this province ; Yet if y e Commissary does not take notice of 
them he is laughed at by y e profane, & blamed by those who are religious : 
But he is obliged to bear y e Reflections of both through an Apprehension 
that his Commission will not bear him out if he should proceed against them. 

There is also a great Inconvenience arising to our ministers, & 
Irregularities proceeding y e Licenses for marriages being issued out of y e 
Office of y e Governors Secretary & directed to any protestant Minister : 
Some Justices of y e Peace pretend that this Direction includes them, & 
upon that pretence take upon them to marry. In our neighboring (y e 
Jersies) they are expressly directed to any protestant Minister or Justice 
of y e Peace, though some of y e latter are very mean Fellows, Butchers, 
and low-lifed Traders, & some of y e best of them are but Common 
Farmers and plow men. And by these means it comes to pass that we 
have very irregular & unlawful marriages amongst us. 

It is said of Mariland that y e L d Baltimore will not suffer y e B p of 
London's Commissary even to read his Commission in that Province : 
And as to this Province of Pennsylvania ; one of y e greatest men in our 
Government asserted in Vestry, That our Church is only tolerated by 
M r . Penn y e Proprietour ; & he thinks himself justified in saying so by 
y e Words of that clause in y e Proprietours Charter which was put in for 
y e Security of our Church and he proceeded so far as to assert that 
neither y e Cannons nor Rubrick have any Force in this province. 

As y e Jersies are divided from this province by nothing but y e River 
Delaware, & this City stands upon y e Banks of that River, I submit to 
your L d ship whether it would not be more convenient for y e Missionaries 
of West Jersey next adjoining to be annexed to Pennsylvania under one 
Commissary, than to New York which is at so great a Distance. 

It wou'd be of considerable Service to y e Church & her Ministers 
here to find some means to make y e Governors hearty in our Interest. 

I cannot recollect at present anything more that has fallen in with 
my Observation with Regard to that Part of the Colonies that I have 



320 APPENDIX A. 

been concerned with as the Bishop of Londons Commissary to trouble 
your L d ship with. 

I pray God to give Success to your L d ships pius endeavors for the 
Service of the Church. 
And I am, 

May it please your L d ship, 
Y r L d ships 

Most dutiful Son & obedient 
humble Servant 

Rob t Jenney. 

XL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE BISHOP OF LONDON 
AND THE ENGLISH MINISTRY, RELATIVE TO THE INTRO- 
DUCTION OF BISHOPS INTO THE AMERICAN COLONIES, 
1749-50. 

From the Newcastle Papers in the British Museum, Home Series, 32719-21. 



Thomas Sherlock, Bishop of London, to the Duke of Newcastle. 

September 3, 1749. 
I will own to your Grace, what my fatal mistake was, I thought, (and 
I have not changed my opinion) y* I had so much of his Mat yB favours ; 
and was in hopes that I had so much interest in y r Grace that I might 
prevail to have Bps abroad & some help for myself at home — But if 
I ask too much in desiring assistance, I am sure I shall undertake too 
much to enter upon the business of America without assistance, and I 
hope y r Grace will obtain the King's leave for me to confine myself to 
the care of my proper diocese of London. I will doe nothing to dis- 
oblige the King, I owe too much to him, But I hope his Majesty will (I 
doubt not but he will) consider the case of an old, and, give me to 
say, a faithful servant. 

2. 
Duke of Newcastle to the Bishop of London. 

September 5, 1749. 
The appointing Bishops, ... is a great, & national consideration; 
had been long under the Deliberation of great, & wise men, heretofore ; 
and was, by them laid aside ; and ought not to be resumed, for personal 



SHERLOCK TO NEWCASTLE, 1749. 321 

considerations ;" or, at all, be looked upon in that Light. Whatever my 
Opinion is or may be, upon that Point ; I am sure you cannot think, It 
can proceed from any want of Friendship, or Regard for you. 

3- 

Bishop of London to the Duke of Newcastle. 

September 7, 1749. 

I reckoned (perhaps misreckoned) that I was proposing a scheme 
for the pub lick service, to enable not only myself but every Bp. of London 
to execute with some tolerable degree of care, the extensive commission 
he is to have in his Majesties foreign dominions, in the due Execution 
of w ch , the King's Honour is concerned ; and w ch the Religion of the 
Country, the prosperity of the Ch : of England ; always esteemed the 
Bulwark ag 8t Popery ; the members whereof are the only set of Xtians 
in the King's dominions who own the Supremacy of [the Crown] 

With respect to the Settlmt of Bps abroad, your Grace's Observation 
has great justness and Dignity in it : that it ought not to be resumed on 
a Personal Consideration. 

I am sensible that I have shewn so much concern for the success of 
this scheme, and have amongst other considerations so often suggested 
that the care of the plantations was too much for one Bp to discharge 
with benefit to others or credit to himself, and brought with it an 
Expense, not reasonably imposed on one Bp who had no more rela- 
tion to the plantations than others had ; That I may well have fallen 
under the Suspicion of y r Grace, & others, that my Concern in this case 
has been selfish. But whatever handle I may [have] given to such sus- 
picions, yet I must have lived to little purpose, if I am capable of think- 
ing that so great & material an affair was to be determined by regard 
to me, or any other man living : I did indeed flatter myself that I 
shou'd not be the worst Sollicker in the case for the favour I had with 
y r Grace. — But let not the reasons of real weight be overlooked, & 
sink under suspiceons, I will not trouble you with setting forth these 
Reasons : But permit me to say one thing ; that there is not, and I 
think, there never was, a Xtian Ch : in the world, in the condition the 
Ch : of England is now, in the Plantations ; obliged to send from one 
side of the World to the other, to get ministers ordained to officiate in 
their Congregations, — As to the reasons relating, (not to myself only, 
but) to the Bishop of London, I have said no more than my Predecess* 
said daily to me & to many others : he was as able to dispatch business, 



322 APPENDIX A. 

as any who were before him, and as any who may probably come after 
him, but he felt & complained of the burden. — There is one kind of 
selfishness w ch has perhaps influenced me ; or has more of vanity than 
Interest in it : I shou'd, indeed think it the glory of my life, if I c'd be 
the instrument, even in the lowest degree of putting the Ch. abroad 
upon a true and primitive foot. 

As to the Views I have had in this whole affair, I have nothing to 
accuse myself if in the warmth of prosecuting, I have, either in speaking 
or writing on this subject, so far forgot myself or y r Grace, as to have 
fallen into any Impropriety, I hope you will pardon it ; and permit me 
to assure you that, tho' you have many abler friends, you have none 
more heartily & sincerely concerned to your honour & Prosperity, or 
more sensible of your favours than, etc. 

4- 

Bishop of London to Duke of Newcastle. 

March 23, 1749/50. 
My Lord Duke, 

Your Grace will receive together with this, a Representation of 
the State of the Church of England in America, which I intend to lay 
before the King in Council. At present the Church there is without 
any Government or Inspection, & it is absolutely necessary to put an 
end to this State which will be a State of Confusion. I laid the Repre- 
sentation before my Lord Chancellor, and tho' he has difficulties as to 
the main point, yet I had the Satisfaction to know from his Lordship, 
that the address and the Style of it had nothing to give Offense. — If 
I shou'd not succeed in the thing I have most at Heart, yet I promise 
myself that some attention will be given to this Address, and that after 
Due Consideration of the State of the Church abroad, his Majesty will 
give such directions as may make his gracious intentions of protecting 
and Supporting the Church of England, effectual in his foreign Dominions. 
As to what relates to myself, I put it all out of the Case, and will 
resign myself to his Majesty's pleasure. But there are many reasons 
why I shou'd desire a resolution by Authority, and I hope your Grace, 
recollecting what has passed will not think me too hasty in presenting 
this address next Week, that I may know his Majesty's pleasure before 
he goes abroad. 

I am 
My Lord, Your Grace's 
Most obedient & most humble Servant 

Tho : London. 



NEWCASTLE TO SHERLOCK, 1750. 323 

5- 
Duke of Newcastle to the Bishop of London. 

March 25, 1750. 
My Lord, 

I had the Honour of your Lordship's Letter of the 23 d Ins* 
enclosing a Representation of the State of the Church of England in 
America, which your Lordship proposes to lay before the King, in 
Council. I have read the Representation over, with great Attention ; 
and entirely agree with my Lord Chancellor, that It is wrote with great 
Clearness & Decency ; and is far from containing anything, that can 
give offense. As to the Point of Establishing Bishops in the West 
Indies, your Lordship knows I have always thought It of such Impor- 
tance, that It required the most mature Consideration ; and the Opinion 
is not lessen'd by what appears to have passed, both here, & in the West 
Indies, relative to this Point. If the Commission, to Bishop Gibson, 
was defective ; that may easily be rectified, if It shall be thought proper 
to pursue the same Method : But, at present, I understand from My 
Lord Chancellor, your Lordship proposes to meet some of the King's 
Servants, to consider this important Question. I shall, with greatest 
Pleasure, attend any Evening, that is not already appointed for other 
Business. The only vacant Evening, this week, with me, is Thursday ; 
I doubt whether my Brother can come that Night : If He can, I will fix 
that Evening with Him. In the Meantime I should hope, your Lordship 
would not present the Address to the King in Council, till after his 
Majesty's principal Servants have had a Meeting with you, upon it. I 
beg your Lordship to be assured, that I shall consider this Question, with 
the utmost Attention ; as an Affair of this high Moment, and so strongly 
recommended by your Lordship, deserves. You cannot wonder, that 
one, so little inform'd of these things, as myself, should have his Doubts, 
upon a Question, which has been often agitated ; and which the wisest 
& best, men have hitherto, not thought proper to determine, in the way, 
you propose. 

I am always, with greatest Respect, 

My Lord, your Lordship's, &c 

Holles Newcastle. 



324 APPENDIX A. 

6. 

Horatio Walpole to the Bishop of London. 

May 29, 1750 
My Lord, 

Your Lordship having been pleased to communicate to me sometime 
since in confidence a paper containing a State of y e Church of England 
in his Majesty's Dominions in America with your Lordship's inferences & 
reasonings upon it as motive for having Suffragan Bishops settled in some 
of these Colonies to perform certain Ecclesiastical functions necessary to 
promote & support y e Establishment of that Church these I carefully 
perused and considered the whole with that intention & disposition as 
became a Member of y e Church of England whose Education & pro- 
fession have always been agreeable to her form and Doctrine. 

But your Lordship may remember that when I returned you that 
paper, I took y e liberty to tell you that however desirable, and reason- 
able a Scheme for settling Bishops for some purposes in y e American 
Colonys might be abstractly considered, yet having weighed this meas- 
ure, with a due regard at y e same time to what appears to be y e inclina- 
tion of those colonies, and what might be y e consequence of it as a 
matter of State to our present happy Establishment, I was apprehensive 
that y e carrying it only so far as to be laid before y e King & Council 
might be attended with very Mischievous effects to y e Government. 

For with respect to y e Inclinations of y e people in America it does not 
appear by your Lordships Deduction of what had passed there in Favor 
of y e Church of England, that y e Governours and those of that persua- 
sion themselves were at all desirous of having Bishops sent thither for 
any purposes whatsoever; many indeed of y e Colonys and Islands not 
only prefer, but have encouraged & countenanced by various Acts 
y e forms and Doctrines of the Church of England, & they will admit 
none to be capable of a benefice untill they have testimonials of their 
being qualified according to the Canons of that Church by having taken 
Deacons & Priests Orders ; and your Lordship wou'd draw from thence 
the following inferences 

i° That they wou'd not be unwilling a Bishop shou'd reside amongst 
them 

2 That it can never be thought reasonable that those who profess 
y e established Religion, & are Episcopal Churches shou'd be denyed 
y e benefit of Episcopal Administration which according to their Re- 
ligious Principles they think necessary for them 



WALPOLE TO SHERLOCK, 1750. 325 

3 That y e Episcopal Churches in America want their first & most 
necessary Member a Bishop to reside with them & have waited with for 
y e consent y e Crown. 

Now with humble Submission to your Lordships better Judgement I 
do not think these inferences your Lordship makes from y e Attachment 
of many of y e Colonies to ye Church of England are Conclusive to prove 
that they are desirous of having y e Residence of a Bishop, for they confine 
all their Orders, & Acts to y e Authority of y e Bishop of London acting 
by his Commissary there. 

They have never that I have learnt made any formal application, or 
even Intimated to y e Crown for y e residence of Bishops w th them, they 
have vested the care of these matters that want y e Inspection & Author- 
ity of a Bishop upon y e Spot in other hands they have required that 
their Minister shou'd be ordained here according to the Cannons of 
y e Church to be certified by the Bishop of London, & all transactions 
relating to y e Clergy they refer to his Lordship or his Comissary to 
whom they readily Submitt but they have never yet given y e least hint 
to him or any of y e Officers of State here, as if they wanted y e Mission, 
or y e Residence of a Bishop amongst them ; they have declared by 
Several Acts of Assembly against Ecclesiastical Laws, & Jurisdiction to 
enforce or establish any mulct or Punishment, they seemed therefore to 
have conceived some jealousy of that Church power, and I am afraid a 
stronger Inference may be made from thence of their having no Inclina- 
tion to have a Bishop, than can be made from other Acts in favor of 
y e Church of England that they desire to have one 

It is true that they have never complained, as your Lordship 
observes, of y e Bishop's Comissary, nor have they ever intimated their 
concern at his not having sufficient power, & authority to govern the 
Clergy there, which rather shows that they are content with a Comissary, 
than that they wish to have a Bishop in his place ; and indeed my Lord 
from your own State of y e case all y e Acts of the Colonys and encourage- 
ment in support of the Church of England with respect to Ecclesiastical 
Discipline, Doctrine, & Authority extend no farther than what might be 
legally delegated by a Bishop of London to a Comissary residing 

I took y e Liberty to observe to your Lordship, from Your own paper, 
that y e Bishops Compton, Robinson, & Gibson to whose departm* as 
Bishop of London y e care of y e Church in America belonged, all Prelates 
zealously and rigorously attached to y e Church of England carryed their 
desire of having the Doctrine and Governm*, Settled in y e West Indys 
under their Authority as far as they possibly could, & nothing more 



326 APPENDIX A. 

cou'd be obtained but a Superintendency over the Church & his Clergy 
there by Comissarys to be appointed by them. 

And had it been thought prudent to have gone any farther by send- 
ing Suffragan Bishops to y e West Indys Queen Ann, & her Ministry, 
especially at y e latter end of her reign as they were not wanting in zeal 
for y e Church to undertake, cou'd not have wanted power to carry 
through so pius a design 

I told your Lordship that I cou'd very well remember what was in 
agitation, on this subject by Bishop Gibson in 1725 ; Lord Townshend 
was so good a friend to that Orthodox Prelate, as well as to y e Church, 
that it is natural to believe that such a Scheme for his Benefit wou'd 
have been pursued, & put in execution had not y e wisdom of those two 
great men thought unadvisable, & however desirable yet a Dangerous 
Step with Respect to y e Peace, & Quiet of y e State ; And therefore my 
Lord independent of what may be y e disposition of y e Governours & of 
great Numbers in y e West Indys attached to y e Rites, & doctrine of the 
Church of England ; I cou'd not forbear letting your Lordship know that 
I apprehended as soon as a Scheme of sending Bishops to y e Colonys 
altho' with certain restrictions shou'd under your Lordships Authority & 
Influence be made publick it wou'd immediately become y e Topick of 
all conversation ; a matter of controversy in y e Pulpitts, as well as by 
Pamphletts, & Libells, with a Spirit of bitterness & acrimony that pre- 
vail more frequently in disputes about Religion as y e Authors and 
Readers are differently affected than on any other Subject. 

The Dissenters of all Sorts whom I mention with no other regard or 
concern than as they are generally well affected, & indeed necessary 
Supports to ye present establishment in State, & therefore shou'd not 
be provoked, or alienated against it, will by the instigation & complaints 
of their brethren in y e Colonys altho' with no Solid reasons be loud in 
their discourses & writings upon this intended innovation in America, 
and those in y e Colonys will be exasperated & animated to make 
warm representations against it to y e Government here, as a design to 
establish Ecclesiastical power in its full extent among them by Degrees ; 
altho' y e first step seems to be moderate & measured, by confining y e 
Authority of y e Bishops to be planted amongst them to certain Colonies 
& Functions. 

The High Church party here / for immediately y e distinction of High 
Church & Low Church w cb has occasioned great Mischiefs in this 
divided Country in former Reigns, and has happily laid a Sleep for some 
Years, will be revived / I say y e High Church party & especially a cer- 



WALPOLE TO SHERLOCK. 327 

tain great Nursery of Learning, and others that are dissaflected to 
y e present Establishm* of which your Lordship must allow there are too 
many among those of y e Church persuasion, may perhaps cover your 
Lordship with great encomiums, for your extended & unexampled Zeal 
in behalf of y e Church of England, but will treat with y e Severest reflex- 
ions those and especially y e k g & his ministers who shall not readily 

give into y e promoting of so pious a design. 

The Low Church party that are all well affected to y e Present Gov- 
ernm* will not be sparing of their Censure & Reflexions upon your 
Lordship & others, that are for propagating & promoting a Scheme 
which they will say is Calculated to sett up Hierarchy & Church power 
in y e Colonys, & to create dissention & confusion among a People that 
are now happy & quiet in their Civil & Religious State. 

And your Lordship will pardon my friendly freedom for adding that 
many persons of Consideration who have a true Value for your Lord- 
ship's great Learning & Understanding, are not without jealousy of your 
extraordinary Zeal & desire to increase Ecclesiastical Power in this 
Country, and that jealousy my Lord will carry with it an apprehension 
that this first motion for settling Bishops in America to perform certain 
functions only as Ordination & Confirmation is laying a foundation for 
giving them gradually y e same Authority & power as y e Bishops here 
enjoy & exercise in all other respects ; wf 1 there is no doubt but your 
LQrdship thinks are all strictly just & reasonable, and ought not to be 
altered or diminished, and consequently you must think that they ought 
to take place in y e Colonys, and if it was reasonable & practicable to 
attempt y e Establishment of them there at present, and this apprehension 
will in a great degree have y e same effect & be attended with y e same 
consequences of ill humour & discontent as if Ecclesiastical Govern- 
ment was now to be settled there in its full extent. 

But if this scheme cannot be carry'd into Execution without being 
laid before y e Parliament ; has your Lordship considered y e great dilemma 

& difficultys y e K g & y e administration will be put under in that 

respect, & shou'd it be brought thither ; however the Court may be 
disposed, I am afraid it will not be canvassed without y e greatest heats 
& animositys, & perhaps a Division among those that are best affected 
to his Majesty's Governm* in both Houses, these Animosities & Divisions 
will flow from y e Parliament into y e Country, & all contests in y e Choice 
of Magistrates, or for Members of Parliament will be again Governed 
by that Odious & pernicious distinction of High Church & Low Church, 
and this puts me in Mind of Bishop Atterbury's Policy who when a 



328 APPENDIX A. 

certain Sermon of Doct r Hoadleys was printed in 1718 said to his 
intimate friends that condemned it, it was no matter what f Doctrine 
was ; f publication of it was a very lucky event in favour of y e Right 
Line as it wou'd create Divisions amongst those attached to y e present 
establishment for he added, y e best means to be employed to get rid of 

y e present R fa?nily would be to put y e Controversy upon some 

Religious points ; and altho' we seem to be in a State of perfect tran- 
quility I am sorry to say it, but I am afraid it is too true that y e affection 
to this family is not so Universal and prevalent, as to make it prudent, 
to set on foot the most plausible Scheme for an Innovation in religious 
matters even in y e Colonys as might / w ch I am firmly persuaded this 
would / hazard a division among the best friends there as well as in this 

kingdom. I cou'd say a great deal to show that Jaco sra is rather 

encreased than diminished since y e Suppression of y e last unnatural 
Rebellion in 1745, w c . h is a thing rather to be secretly lamented than 
publicly declared, but this Observation shou'd make all wise men such as 
your Lordship, that are well affected to this Government, very Cautious 
in Starting & pursuing y e most desirable project that may create new 
disputes, & tend to disturb y e present calm & peaceful Situation of 
affairs. 

Indeed my Lord I was so vain as to Imagine my Conversation with 
your Lordship on this Subject had, had some effect upon you, & you 
seemed then inclined to Suspend, your intention of laying your Scheme 
before the King, & afterwards when you mentioned it to His Majesty, 
& he was pleased to refer y e Matter to y e Consideration of His Privy 
Council, you lodged your paper with y e Lord President declaring to 
Several that you had done your duty & having discharged your Con- 
science, you shou'd let it rest there to be Considered by the Council 
when they shou'd think proper. 

And as the matter stood thus when His Majesty went abroad I 
must own my Lord that I was Surprised & Concerned to hear that at a 
late meeting of y e Society for propagating y e Gospel, your Lordship 
having stated to them what had passed, & proposed that, while this 
matter was pending in Council, y e Society shou'd write a letter to y e 
several Governours in the West Indys, and by Stating to them y e several 
objections Supposed to have been made against y e intended Scheme 
of Settling Bishops there, and y e answers that might be made to remove 
those objections, to conclude with desiring to know their Opinions & 
y e disposition of y e Colonys, with respect to y e putting it in Execution. 

Now my Lord, as this is a Matter of State, and has been referred by 



WALPOLE TO SHERLOCK. 329 

his Majesty to be considered in Council, & your Lordship is one of that 
Body It seems to be not entirely consistent with y e prudence of one in 
that Station unless so desired by the Council, to resume an affair of this 
Importance in y e Society for propagating y e Gospel, and under a Notion 
of Supposed objections to it, and Supposed answers framed by your 
Lordship, or if you please by that Society, to write a plausible letter to 
the Governours for their Sentiments upon a matter of State, under y e 
Consideration of y e Council, there may possibly be other objections 
such as I have mentioned before relating to y e Government besides 
what may be Stated in your Lordship's letter, and even with respect to 
y e answers to those objections that you suppose to have been Suggested, 
can your Lordship and that Society undertake to make those answers 
good ? Can you undertake to promise that no coercive, or other 
Ecclesiastical power besides Ordination & Confirmation, shall ever be 
proposed & pressed upon y e Colonys when Bishops have been once 
settled amongst them, or beyond what is at present exercised by the 
Bishop of London's Commissary? 

Can y e Society undertake that y e maintenance of y e Bishops in y e 
West Indys shall be no Burthen to y e Colonys ? are they to determine 
what that expence is to be ? & how is it to be supply'd ? or is it intended 
that it shall be done by a Voluntary Contribution out of y e Bishopricks 
in England? 

But for what end or purpose is the Opinion of y e Governours, or y e 
people in America to be asked at this juncture ? While the Considera- 
tion of this matter is before y e Council, who may and I suppose will 
advise his Majesty to do what is best for y e good of his Subjects & his 
Government when the whole case & the consequences of it shall have 
been examined & taken into Deliberation by them ; but Suppose my 
Lord y e Governors in America being consulted, & influenced perhaps 
in a great measure by the weight of your Lordship's Character, your 
Station as Bishop of London, & your Credit with the King & the Minis- 
try, shou'd in their Answer be of Opinion that y e Scheme for Episcopacy 
in y e West Indys under y e Limitation & explanations proposed by your 
Lordship, wou'd not be inconvenient, but even beneficial ; & shou'd on 
y e other side the Majority of y e Council be of Opinion for reasons of 
State that y e Execution of it may, notwithstanding the favorable Senti- 
ments of y e Governours in behalf of it, be prejudicial to his Majesty's 
Governm*, has your Lordship well weighed y e Consequences that may 
result from an affair so Circumstanced & perplexed, & the Embaras- 
[ment] that his Majesty & his Council may be under in coming to a 



330 APPENDIX A. 

Decision upon it, which whatever it may be, in all likelihood will occassion 
great heats & Controversys as partys are in this Notion unhappily di- 
vided & differently affected. 

Shou'd not your Lordships wisdom & moderation as a Prelate, so 
much recomended in y e Gospel to y e followers of our Saviour; and 
Quality of a Privy Councellor prevail with you to forbear taking this 
Step untill you shou'd See what is like to be done upon it by y e 
Council. 

If they shou'd be dilatory in taking it under their Consideration, it 
wou'd be an Indication to your Lordship of their not caring to come 
hastily to a Determination in a matter of so much Consequence & diffi- 
culty, & should be an Inducement to let your Spiritual Zeal yield to your 
Temporal Prudence, & make you rest contented after having discharged 
your Conscience as Bishop of London in having laid the matter before 
his Majesty. 

Should y e Council upon his Majesty's return home take it under 
their Consideration and be desirous, as a Material point in their de- 
liberation, to know y e Sentiments of the Governours, & of y e Colonys 
upon it, there is no doubt but what they will give directions for that 
purpose, & therefore my Lord, as you was pleased to impart this matter 
for settling Episcopacy in America early to me, you will excuse y e Liberty 
I take in exhorting you for y e sake of publick peace, & y e Interest of 
this happy Establishment not to proceed any farther in it ; for I can't 
help repeating my fears that, if 2000 copys of your projected letter to 
y e Governours, with a State of y e Supposed objections & answers relating 
to your Scheme, shou'd be forthwith printed, as I am told your Lordship 
has proposed, it wou'd Stir up great feuds & animositys, in Canvassing 
by Virulent Pamphlets, y e Question on both sides, & I can't but hope 
that your Lordship when you have cooly weigh'd y e Consequence of 
such Commotions will give a pause to your present good Intentions ; & 
wait with patience the return of his Majesty, to learn y e Sentiments 
& proceedings of his Council upon what you have lodged with them 
without making it immediately y e Subject of discourse or debate either 
in this Country or in America. The thing itself is new, & therefore 
deserves Serious Consideration ; it is not of so pressing and urgent a 
Nature, as to hazard any great inconvenience from being Suspended ; 
precipitation may, but Delay cannot be dangerous in this Case, I am &c. 

Cockpit, 

May 29, 1750. 



WALPOLE TO NEWCASTLE, 1750- 33 1 

7- 
Horatio Walpole to the Duke of Newcastle. 

Cockpit, June 7, 1750. 
My Lord/ 

My unalterable attachment to his Maj ty * person and Government 
[prompted me] to write y e letter (of w ch your Grace has a copy en- 
closed) to the Bishop of London. 

The Subject, and occasion of it are so fully sett forth in y e Contents 
as to want no farther explanations. 

I dare say your Grace is persuaded that both his L rdp & I have 
y e same good intentions for his Majestys interest & Service, And I must 
own that his Superior talents make me diffident of my own Sentiments, 
when they do not fall in with his ; And if I am mistaken in my judge- 
ment, on a matter of so much consequence to y e State, I hope it will be 
attributed to my abundant zele, & concern for y e Peace, & happiness of 
his Maj tys Reign. 

Your Grace will be so good as to manage this Confidence, of an 
accidental, & private Correspondence between y e Bishop & me with 
your usual discretion, because if my apprehensions are at all well-founded, 
the proposal of so great a man to settle Episcopacy in the Colonys should 
be as little known as possible to y e Publick ; I am with great respect 

My Lord 
Y r U^ s most obedi't & 
most humble Servent 
H. Walpole. 
8. 

Duke of Newcastle to Horatio Walpole. 

June 24, 1750. 
Sir, , July 5 

I am extremely oblig'd to you, for the Honor of your Letter, and 
your Goodness, in Sending me a Copy of one, that you had wrote to the 
Bishop of London, upon His Lordship's Scheme, for Settling Bishops in 
the West Indies. I have read it over, with great Attention ; and think, 
you have stated the Case, with great Clearness, and Judgement, that the 
Considerations, there suggested, are of the utmost Importance ; and 
ought to be thoroughly weighed, before this Scheme is carried into 
Execution. I always had very good Doubts, upon This Measure, from 
the First Proposal, and I have told His Lord p , from the Beginning ; And 
I was so happy, as to make Some of the same Inferences, from the 



332 APPENDIX A. 

Proofs, He alledg'd, of the Sense, & Inclination, of the Colonies, & 
Islands, That you have done ; which I sent His Lord?, in a Letter I wrote 
to Him, immediately after I had His Paper. I own, I think, There is 
great Weight, also, in the Consequences, You so judiciously suggest, that 
This Affair may have at Home, in reviving old Disputes, & Distinctions, 
which are, at present, quiet ; and, perhaps, creating new Divisions 
amongst Those, Who Sincerely mean the Good of His Majesty's Govern- 
ment and the Good of Their Country. For These Reasons, I am 
persuaded, The Lords of the Council, will fully consider all These 
Points, before any material Step is taken in this Affair. I was extremely 
sorry to hear, That the Society, for propagating the Gospel, had been 
concerned in it : But I find Since, That That is Stopped. Your zeal for 
his Majesty's Service, and Government is too well known, and acknowl- 
edge, for it to be proper for me to say any Thing upon it. You will 
allow me, however to observe, That you have shew'd, very usefully, upon 
this occasion. . . . 

9- 
Horatio Walpole to the Duke of Newcastle. 

July 14, 1750. 
Your Grace's favorable reception (so fully exprest in y e honour of 
y e letter of y e 5 th of July : ) of my Sentiments upon y e Bishop of Londons 
Scheme for settling Episcopacy in y e West Indys, requires my best 
acknowledgements, and gave me no small satisfaction, I can assure your 
Grace, as corroborating with yours my opinion in a matter of so much 
importance to y e Peace & Quiet of his Majestys Government; w oh all 
good Subjects should promote, and render as easy to him, as it has been 
constantly mild, & prosperous to them, as well as greatly admired & 
respected by foreign Powers. . . . 

XII. BISHOP SHERLOCK'S REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE 
CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN THE COLONIES. 

New York Colonial Documents, VII, pp. 360-369, from Plantations General 
Entries (B. T.), XVI, p. 9. 

To the King in Council 

Some considerations humbly offered by Thomas Bishop of London 

relating to Ecclesiastical Government in His Majestys Dominions 

in America. 

The first Grant the Crown made of lands in America was dated the 

10 th April in the 4 th year of James the i 8t anno 1606 and made to the 

two Virginia Companies. 



SHERLOCK'S REPORT. 333 

The King grants that each of them should have a Council, w ch sho d 
govern and order all matters & causes within the same several Colonies, 
according to such Laws Ordinances and Instructions as sho d in that 
behalf be given and signed by His Majesty's hand or sign manual & pass 
under the Privy Seal of England. 

1606. On the 20 th Nov r 1606 the King in pursuance of the right 
reserved to himself, gave divers orders under his Sign manuall and the 
Privy Seal, one of which was as follows : " That the President Council 
and Ministers should provide that the true word and service of God 
should be preached planted and used, according to the Rites and Doc- 
trine of the Church of England" 

1609. The second grant was made separately to the first Virginia 
Company dated May 23 d in the 7 th of the said King 1609 w ch orders that 
there sho d be a Council resident here and gives them power to establish 
all manner of laws concerning the governrn* of the said Colony, with 
power to punish, pardon, & c according to such ordinances constitutions 
& c as by such Council should be established ; so always as the said 
Ordinances & c as near as conveniently might be agreeable to the Laws, 
Statutes, Govermnent and Policy of the Realm. 

1620. The third Grant was made to the 2 d Virginia Company (then 
called the Council at Plymouth) and bears date Nov 1 3 d 18 th James I. 
Anno 1620, and is to the same effect with the former, with this addition 
that all persons who sho d pass in any voiage to the said country sho d 
take the Oath of Supremacy, which was meant to exclude Papists from 
settling in America. 

The affairs of the Company went on but slowly, & after twelve years 
and a great sum of money spent, the Colony consisted but of 600 per- 
sons, men women and children. Under these circumstances nothing 
was done and nothing could be expected to be done towards settling 
the Church there. 

In 1620. there were but five Clergymen in the Plantations. The 
Comp y had ordered an 100 acres in each of their burroughs (w eh were 
in number eleven) to be set apart for a glebe, and for a further mainte- 
nance laid upon every planter a certain portion of tobacco to be paid to 
the Minister. 

The next care was to get more Clergymen to go abroad to the Planta- 
tions, and this was to be provided for by the Virginia Council that sat at 
London. The Bishop of London was a great promoter of the Planta- 
tions and had collected and paid in ^1000 towards the College in Vir- 
ginia, and was himself one of the Council for Virginia. The Company 



334 APPENDIX A. 

therefore, as it was natural for them to do, applied to the Bishop of 
London, a member of their own Society, for his help and assistance in 
procuring Ministers. And this is the first instance I meet with of the 
Bp. of London's concern in the Ecclesiastical affairs of the Plantations. 

1624 But so little was done towards settling the Church that it 
appears by the report of the General Assembly of Virginia in the year 
1624. that divers of those who acted as Ministers had no Orders. In 
this Assembly there passed laws consisting of 35 articles. The first 
seven related to the Church and Ministry, but not the least intimation 
that the Bp. of London had any authority or jurisdiction there. 

By Proclamation 15 th July 1624. the Virginia Company & c was sup- 
pressed ; and from that time the King has appointed Governors. 

1626. S r George Yardly was appointed Governor of Virginia; his 
instructions bear date 19 th April 1626. The 2 d Article relates to religion 
and is as follows : — 

"That in the first place you be careful, "That Almighty God may be 
duly and daily served, both by your self and the people under your 
charge, which may draw down a blessing on all your endeavours." 

1650. S r William Berkely was Governor. His instructions bear date 
1650. The first article relates to Religion : — 

" That in the first place you be careful Almighty God be duly and daily 
served, according to the form of Religion established in the Church of 
England. 

" Let every Congregation have an able Minister, build for him a con- 
venient Parsonage House with 200 acres of glebe land. Suffer no inno- 
vation in matters of religion, and be careful to appoint sufficient and 
conformable Ministers to each congregation." 

1675. At a Committee of Trade and Plantations 21 st Jan. 1675. I 
find the following entry : — 

"Their Lordships desire that enquiry be made touching the Jurisdic- 
tion which the Bp. of London hath over the Foreign Plantations ; in 
order to w ch see the Charter of Virginia and New England, or by any 
other order since, but most probably about the year 1629. when Bp. 
Laud was in Chief Authority." 

What gave rise to this inquiry I cannot find, but as there was nothing 
relating to this jurisdiction to be found, there does not appear any return 
to be made to this Enquiry. And the part allotted to the Bp. of London 
in the next Governor's instructions shows that the Bp. was not thought to 
have any jurisdiction; for he has nothing but a mere Ministerial Office 
appointed him, as appears in Lord Culpepers Instructions in 1679. 



SHERLOCK'S REPORT. 335 

1679. Thomas Lord Culpeper was Govern 1 " of Virginia. His instruc- 
tions bear date 6 th Sept r 1679. The 15 th articles decrees that God be 
duly served, The Book of Common Prayer as is now established, read 
each Sunday and Holy Day, and the Blessed Sacrament administered 
according to the rules of the Church of England. 

The 1 6 th article " And our will and pleasure is that no Minister be 
preferr'd by you, to any Ecclesiastical Benefice in that Our Colony 
without a Certificate fro?n the Lord Bp. of London, of his being conform- 
able to the Doctrine of the Church of England. 1 '' 

Jamaica. 

166 1. Lord Windsor was Governor of Jamaica; his instructions bear 
date March 21 st 1661. The 11 th article concerns religion: — "You are 
to give the best encouragement you can to such conformable Ministers 
of the Gospel as now are or shall come and be sent unto you. That 
Christianity & the Protestant Religion according to the Doctrine and 
Discipline of the Church of England, may have a due reverence and 
exercise among you." 

1 68 1. S r Thomas Lynch was Governor. His instructions bear date 

1681. The s& th Article relates to religion: — "Our will and 

pleasure is that no Minister be preferr'd by you without a Certificate 

from the Bp. of London, of his being conformable to the Doctrine of 

the Church of England." 

And you are to enquire whether any Minister preaches or administers 
the Sacrament without being in due Orders; whereof you are to give 
notice to the Bp. of London. 

What the Bp. of London could do upon such notice, does not appear. 
The Plantations being no part of his Diocese, nor had he any authority 
to act there. 

1685. At the Committee of Trade 15 th April 1685. a letter from the 
Bp. of London proposing, i st "That he may have all Ecclesiastical 
Jurisdiction in the West Indies, excepting the disposal of parishes, 
licences for Marriage & c Probate of Wills. 

2 d " That no Schoolmaster coming from England, be received without 
Licence from His Lordship, or from other His Majesty's Plantations 
without they take the Governor's licence. 

3 rd " That orders may be given for establishing the Donation of S* 
Andrews Parish in Jamaica." 

"Whereupon their Lordships agree to take these proposals into 
further consideration when my Lord Bp. of London shall be present." 



336 APPENDIX A. 

At the Committee of Trade the 27 Apr. 1685. 

" The Proposals from the Bp. of London contain'd in a letter to M 1 
Blathwayt are again read, His Lordship being present; which being 
approved, their Lordships agree to move His Majesty that the Gov- 
ernors of His Majesty's Plantations have instructions according to the 
two first particulars, and that a clause be added to S r Philip Howard's 
instructions, to that effect ; as also for applying the Donation at S* 
Andrews Parish in Jamaica to the proper Uses." 

In consequence of this application from the Bp. and the Resolution 
of the Board, a clause was added in the same year in S r Philip Howards 
instructions, as follows : — 

And our will and pleasure is, that no Minister be preferred by you, 
to any Ecclesiastical benefice, without a certificate from the R* Rev d the 
Bp. of London, of his conforming to the Doctrine and Discipline of the 
Church of England. 

" And to the end the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the s d Bp. of London 
may take place in that our Island, as far as conveniently may be, we do 
think it fit that you give all counteiiance and encouragem* in the exercise 
of the same excepting only the Collating to Benefices, granting licences 
for Marriage, and Probate of Wills, which we have reserved to you our 
Governor and the Commander in Chief for the time being. 

And we do further direct that no Schoolmaster be hence forward per- 
mitted to come from England and to keep school within that our Island, 
without the licence of the said Bishop." 

The like Instructions were given to other Governors. 

Under this authority Bishop Compton, 1 Bp Robinson, 2 and Bp. Gib- 
son 3 for the first two or three years after he was promoted to the See 
of London, exercised the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictio7i in the Plantations ; 
with exception to the Collation of Benefices, Marriage Licences & 
Probate of Wills w ch were reserv'd to the Governors at the respective 
Colonies. 

1725. In the year 1725 Bp. Gibson desirious of having a more 
explicit authority and direction from the Crown, for the exercise of 

1 Henry Compton, was consecrated bishop of Oxford, April 18th, 1674, and trans- 
lated to London, in 1675. 

2 John Robinson, was consecrated Bishop of Bristol, 19th of November, 17 10, and 
succeeded Bishop Compton, in the see of London, 1713. 

3 Edmund Gibson, was consecrated Bishop of Lincoln, February 12, 1715, and 
succeeded Bishop Robinson, in the see of London, in 1723. He died in 1748. 
PercivaVs Apostolic Succession. — Ed. 



SHERLOCK'S REPORT. 337 

the said Jurisdiction, applied to the King in Council for that purpose. 
The Petition was referred to the Attorney and Solicitor General & by 
their report their opinion appears to be that the authority by w ch the 
Bps. of London had acted in y e Plantacons was insufficient, and that the 
Ecclial Jurisdiction in America did belong neither to the Bishop of Lon- 
don, nor to any Bp. in England but was solely in the Crown in virtue 
of the Supremacy, and that the most proper way of granting to any 
person the exercise of such jurisdiction, was by Patent under the Broad 
Seal. Accordingly, a Patent was granted to D r Gibson late Bp. of Lon- 
don, but it was granted to him Personally & not to him as Bp. of London 
and his successors ; so that the Patent expired with him and the 
Jurisdiction is now solely in His Majesty. 

By the grant to D r Gibson his exercise of the Jurisdiction was sub- 
jected to certain limitations and restraints, and 'tis not clear what 
powers he had in virtue of the s d grant. The Patent gives him authority 
by himself or Commissaries (1) To visit all Churches in which the Rites 
& Liturgy of the Church of England were used. (2) To Cite all Rectors 
Curates and Incumbents and all Priests and Deacons in Church of 
England Orders, et non alias quascumque personas, cum omni et omni- 
modo jurisdictione potestate et coercione ecclesiastica, in premissis 
requisit. and to enquire by Witnesses duly sworn into their morals 
& c with power to Administer Oaths in the Ecclesiastical Court, and to 
Correct & punish the said Rectors & c by suspension excommunication 
& c (3) A power to appoint Commissaries for the exercise of this Juris- 
diction and to remove them at pleasure. (4) An appeal is given, to 
all who shall find themselves aggrieved by any sentence, before the 
Great Officers of State in England 

Observations on this Patent. 

1. A power is given to visit all churches, but he has no power to cite 
the Churchwardens or any of the Parishioners to appear ; and should 
any of them appear voluntarily he has no right to give them any orders 
relating to the Church or Church affairs ; his whole power and jurisdic- 
tion being confined to the Clergy only. 

2. He has power to cite all Priests and Deacons & to examine into 
their conduct provided they have Church of England Orders; but if a 
man should counterfeit Episcopal Orders and administer the Sacraments, 
he has no power to proceed ag 8t him 

3. He has power to examine into the Conduct of the Clergy, upon 
the Oath of Witnesses, and power to administer Oaths for the purpose ; 

22 



338 APPENDIX A 

but he has no power to cite any man, at least no Layman to give testi- 
mony before him : yet the Laymen may be many times necessary wit- 
nesses as in such cases ; and they see daily how their Curate behaves, 
which other Clergymen, who serve distant parishes can give no ac- 
count of. 

4. The Bishop has power to appoint Commissaries to exercise such 
jurisdiction as is granted him by the Patent, and as the Bp. of London 
cannot be supposed to reside in America, he can do nothing by himself, 
as soon as he has appointed Commissaries, the Bishop can neither direct, 
nor correct, their judgment. No appeal lyes to the Bp. nor indeed can 
there ; for in judgment of Law, the Commissary's Sentence is the Bp's 
sentence, and the Appeal must go to a higher Court. 

But this shows at the same time how very improper it is to give such 
power to a Bp. of England, which he cannot execute, but must be 
obliged to give it over to somebody else, as soon as he has it. So that 
the Bp. receiving with one hand what he must necessarily give away 
with the other, remains himself a Cypher without any authority power or 
influence. 

If these observations are well founded the Bishop's jurisdiction, as 
under the Patent, seems to be defective. 

But the Episcopal Churches in America suffer greater hardships still, 
by being under a Bishop who never can reside among them. There are 
some things necessary to such Churches w ch the Bp. only can do himself. 
Such for instance are Confirmation and Ordination, which are not acts 
of jurisdiction or transferable to Commissaries, but are acts peculiar to 
the Episcopal Order and the Episcopal Churches abroad are totally 
deprived of Confirmation. As to Orders, since the Bp. only can give 
them, there is not in this vast tract of land, one who can ordain Min- 
isters for the Church of England. In which respect the Dissenters of 
all kinds, upon the mere foot of Toleration are in a better case : for 
they all appoint Ministers in their own way, and were the Dissenters in 
New England and elsewhere in America, to send all their Ministers to 
be ordained by their Brethren in England, they wo d think it a great 
hardship and inconsistent with the rights they claim by Toleration. 

From these considerations it appears that several Colonies abroad 
where the Church of England is established, are, with respect to their 
religious principles, put under great difficulties. They are absolutely 
deprived of confirmation for all their youth and children, and they are 
oftentimes ill supply'd with Ministers to perform other duties of religion 
among them ; for as the families settled in the country and which are 



SHERLOCK'S REPORT. 339 

able to provide otherwise for their children, will not send their Children 
at a great expence and hazard to be ordain'd in England, where they 
often (as by experience has been found) catch the Small Pox, a distem- 
per more fatal to them than to others, and several who have come over 
hither for Orders have dyed here of this disease. In consequence of 
this the Plantations are furnished with such Ministers from hence, as 
can be prevail'd upon to go among them, or such as are forced through 
necessity to seek a maintenance in a foreign country. And they are 
chiefly Scotch & Irish who offer themselves for this service ; and there 
is reason to apprehend that the Scotch Episcopal Clergy who cannot 
be employed at home, may think of settling in the Plantations ; which 
may be attended with bad consequences in regard to the government. 

The Churches abroad of the Episcopal Communion have been under 
a necessity of submitting to these difficulties ; for as Protestants they 
cannot apply to Popish Bishops for Confirmation or Orders ; and as 
Episcopal Churches they could resort for Orders only to English or 
Irish Bishops. But since the Moravians have been recognized by Par- 
liam* to be a Protestant Episcopal Church and have liberty to settle in 
His Majesty's American Dominions, should the Churches abroad admit 
of Ordination by Moravian Bps. it may be attended by consequences 
not easily foreseen, but easily prevented by suffering the Episcopal 
Churches of England in America to have one or more Suffregan 
Bishops residing among them. 

As the Dissenters at home and abroad may possibly think themselves 
concern'd in this question ; it is necessary to observe that Bps. abroad 
are not desired in behalf of an inconsiderable party there, and that the 
Independents and other Dissenters do by no means (as the case is 
sometimes mistaken to be) make the body of the Inhabitants in His 
Majesty's American Dominions. But previously to stating how the fact 
is at present, it is proper to recollect how the law stands with respect 
to the establishment of the Church of England in America, according 
to the royal Charters and Instructions given to the King's Governors 
abroad herein before mentioned. 

For the Church of England being establish'd in America, the Inde- 
pendents and other Dissenters who went to settle in New England, 
co d only have a Toleration and in fact they had no more, as appears 
by their several Charters, and more particularly in Rhode Island Charter, 
granted in the 14 th year of Cha s II nd . 

Thus stands the right of the Church of England in America. And in 
fact, at least one half of the Plantations are of the established Church, 



340 APPENDIX A. 

and have built Churches and Minister's houses and have by laws of 
their respective Assemblies (confirm'd by the Crown) provided mainte- 
nance for Church of England Clergy, & no others are capable of having 
benefices among them. 

This is the case of S° Carolina, N° Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, 
Jamaica, Barbadoes, Antegoa, Nevis, and the rest of the Caribbee 
Islands. 

On the other side — Pennsylvania is in the hands and under the 
governm* of the Quakers, and New England and the adjoining Colonies 
are in the hands of the Independents. But in some of them are great 
numbers of Churchmen. 

It is sometimes said that it wo d be hard to send Bps : among the 
Dissenters in America ; many of whom left their own Country to get 
from under their power. 

If Bps. were proposed to be established in Pensilvania and New 
England, with Coercive Powers, there wo d be some colour in the com- 
plaint. But as it never has been propos'd to settle Bps. in those Colo- 
nies, nor in any other Colonies, with Coercive powers, there is no ground 
for it. And whatever prejudices the Independents of New England may 
have to Bps. themselves, surely it can never be thought reasonable that 
because the Northern end of America is possessed chiefly by the Inde- 
pendents, therefore the Southern and Midland parts and the Islands, who 
profess the Established Religion of England and are Episcopal Churches, 
sho d be denyed the benefit of Episcopal administration, which according 
to their religious principles they think necessary to them. 

If the Supremacy of the Crown be (as it has been often styled) a 
rich jewel in the Crown of England, it should be considered that the 
Supremacy is maintained and obeyed by the Established Church only. 
Dissenters of all kinds are discharged from all regard to it, and are at 
full liberty to act for themselves in religious affairs, without taking the 
consent or even advice of the Crown : and therefore they make what 
Ministers they please. But the Episcopal Churches of England in 
America want their first and most necessary Member, a Bp. to reside 
with them ; and have waited with patience for the consent of the Crown ; 
and their bretheren at home, the Bps. of England and the Society for 
Propagating the Gospel, have often been intercessors to the Crown on 
their behalf. 

The objections to settling Bishops in the Plantations are chiefly these 
two. 

i. It is doubted whether it will be agreeable to the People there. 



SHERLOCK'S REPORT. 341 

2. It is doubted whether any maintenance can be had for such 
Bishops. 

As to the first point : As no Bishops are propos'd to be settled in 
Pensilvania, or New England, or the Colonies thereto belonging, it is 
to no purpose to enquire of their inclination ; they are not concern'd 
themselves and have no right to judge for others. This question there- 
fore can relate only to those parts where the Church of England is estab- 
lished and profess'd, and with respect to them and to know clearly what 
their sentiments are, it is necessary to consider Episcopacy with respect 
to the Duties belonging to it as an Order in the Christian Church, and 
with respect to the Powers of Jurisdiction derived to it from the Civil 
Magistrate. 

In the first view, their own laws will shew that they have no objection. 
To begin with — 

South Carolina. By Acts of Assembly there, all Churches and 
Parishes are to be served by Ministers Episcopally ordained, (vide the 
Act called the Church Act) & with respect to the Schoolmaster of their 
own Free School, it is enacted that he shall be of the religion of the 
Church of England and conform to the same. (Vide Free School Act) 
and by an Additional Act to the Free School Act, special encouragement 
is given to the Ministers recommended by the Bp. of London. 

North Carolina. It is enacted that all Statute Laws made in England 
for the Establishment of the Church, shall be in force here. 

Virginia. Enacted, that no Minister be admitted to officiate in this 
country, but such as have received Ordination from some Bishop in 
England. 

Maryland. All places for Public Worship according to the Usage 
of the Church of England, shall be deemed settled and established 
Churches. 

Barbadoes. Jhe Church of England established by Act of Gen 1 
Assembly; and the maintenance, provided for the better encour- 
agem* of the Clergy, is appropriated to the Orthodox Ministers of the 
Church of England. 

Antegoa. By act of Assembly, none capable of being presented to 
Benfices, unless they produce testimonials that they are qualified accord- 
ing to the Canons of the Church of England; by having taken Deacons 
and Priests Orders. 

Nevis. By Act of Assembly Maintenance provided for Ministers of 
the Church of England, 

Leeward Islands. By Act of Assembly, the Governor may suspend an 



342 APPENDIX A. 

Incumbent giving notice thereof to the Bp. of London, that his Lordship 
may give such directions therein, as to him shall seem meet. 

Jamaica. None to be capable of a Benefice unless they produce 
testimonials that they are qualified according to the Canons of the 
Church of England by having taken Deacons and Priests Orders. 

By these Acts of Assembly it is plain that they have no objection 
ag st Bishops, in the religious view, so far from it, that they admit no 
Minister to serve in the Churches supported by Publick Maintenance, 
but such as are Episcopally ordained. And it cannot be supposed 
that they wo d be unwilling a Bp. should reside among them, where 
his authority & influence might be of great use in the due governm* & 
direction of the Clergy ; provided that a Bp. residing with them had 
power to do no more than they are now desirous sho d be done by a 
Bishop at a distance. 

But the difficulty arises from the 2 nd view ; and the question is, how 
far they will be contented to admit the jurisdiction w ch the Bps. in 
England have in many cases, by and under the Crown. 

As the first planters in America were members of the Church of 
England, and carried over with them a regard to the government and 
discipline of their Mother Church ; there is no doubt to be made but 
that they would very willingly have continued under the same Ecclesi- 
astical Government & Discipline in America, under which they had been 
bred in England, had they had any Bps. among them at their first settle- 
ment abroad. But being destitute of Bps. and for some years deprived 
of Publick Church Communion for want of Ministers regularly ordain'd j 
it is more to be wondered at that they have adhered so steadily to the 
Communion of the Church of England with respect to Episcopal Ordi- 
nation and the established Liturgy, than that they have some prejudice 
against Ecclesiastical Courts and Jurisdictions of Bps. of which they have 
seen and known so little for many years. Many things which are under 
the care and authority of Bps. in England, are things necessary to be 
done by somebody, and where there are no Bps. they must be done by 
some other authority. Such are the repairs of Churches and the pro- 
viding books and other necessaries for the service, the Instituting and 
inducting Incumbents, the repairs of Glebe Houses, the Probate of Wills, 
Licence for Marriage, examining and approving Clergymen, and School- 
masters, and the correction of vice and immorality by coercive power. 
As the Colonies had no Bps. to discharge these duties they were neces- 
sitated to provide for them otherwise. And therefore these powers are 
placed by several Acts of Assembly, partly in the Churchwardens, partly 



SHERLOCK'S REPORT. 343 

in Justices of the Peace, and partly in the Governors of the respective 
Provinces. 

That these provisions were made for want of a Bp. among them, and 
not out of dislike to Episcopal Authority appears from the Act of 
Assembly of the Leeward Islands before mentioned, by which the 
Governor is empowered to suspend Clergymen, but it passed under 
an obligation of giving notice to the Bp. of London, and of taking his 
directions. Had there been a Bp. among them, can it be supposed 
the[y] would not have referr'd the matter directly to him? 

The present generation of men in the Colonies being born and bred 
under this Constitution, it is natural to suppose that they are attached 
to the custom of their country, and would be alarm 'd at the apprehen- 
sion of having their powers remov'd out of their hands, in w ch the law 
of their country had plac'd them, and put into the hands of a Bp. with 
whose power in these cases they are unacquainted : and therefore these 
powers exercis'd in the Consistory Courts in England are not desired for 
Bps. residing in America. 

But these Colonies however unaccustomed to Episcopal Jurisdiction 
have always been brought up in an opinion that their Clergy must be 
Episcopally Ordained. And it is not to be supposed that they had 
rather have their Children come to England for Orders than to have 
a Bp. among them to Ordain them at home, and as they are members 
of the Church of England and have received it's liturgy, they cannot 
look into it without seeing that for want of a Bp. among them they and 
their Children are debarr'd from Confirmation 

That there have been jealousies in some of the Plantations of an 
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, is certain from some Acts of their Assembly. 
In the Church Act of Antegoa (w ch passed July i st 1692.) it is enacted, 
that no Ecclesiastical Law or Jurisdiction shall have power to enforce 
confirm or establish any penal mulct or punishment in any case whatso- 
ever. 

There is the like clause in the Church Act of Jamaica. 

If by Penal Mulct or Punishment is to be understood the imposing 
fines upon offenders, it is hard to say what gave occasion to this Proviso ; 
it could not be to guard against the Ecclesiastical Law of England, for 
the Ecclesiastical Court in England neither does nor can impose Fines. 

There is the same Law in Barbadoes against Penal Mulcts by Eccle- 
siastical Law. But whatever gave occasion to it, it is certain it never 
was meant ags* the Authority exercis'd by the Bp. in the case of religion 
or in the government of the Clergy ; for it is declared in a subsequent 



344 APPENDIX A. 

statute that the s d clause sho d not extend to the exercise of Ecclesiastical 
Jurisdiction over the Clergy, according to the tenour of His Majesty's 
Commission to the Bp. of London. The construction upon these two 
Acts must be this ; that they are not willing to receive Ecclesiastical 
Courts with Coercive Powers, but are desirous of receiving Bishops as 
an Order of the Christian Church, to inspect the conduct and behaviour 
of the Clergy, and to perform the duties of their Office in examining 
and ordaining Ministers for the service of the Church. 

Let them at least have such Bps. among them as they are willing to 
receive. 

There have been Commissaries acting under the Bp. of London, ever 
since Bp. Compton's time, and no complaint has been made of their 
power being too great or any ways burdensome to the Country; and 
if Suffragan Bishops with the same Ecclesiastical Powers that the Com- 
missaries have had, were settled in the Plantations, it could make no 
alteration with respect to the Civil Governm* or to the people, but it 
will enable the Church of England there to do what all Churches of 
all denominations have thought necessary to their very being, to provide 
a succession for the Ministry among themselves : a right which the 
Established Church of England in the Plantations has been long deprived 
of, and w ch as far as I can judge, no other Christian Church in the world 
ever wanted. Every sect of Christians, under the Toleration, claims it 
as their right, and exercises it ; and it seems but reasonable to hope that 
an Established Church should enjoy the rights of a Church in equal 
degree at least with tolerated societies of Dissenters. 

The other objection is, — How shall Bishops in America be main- 
tained? Not by Tax or imposition on the People certainly. If Bps. 
were to be sent them, and the country laid under contribution, Bishops 
would be received as Excise Men and Taxgath\er\ers ; and this appre- 
hension in the people abroad, of being burden'd with the maintenance 
of Bishops, would be the readiest way to raise an opposition in the 
Colonies to the settlement of the Bps. among them. 

Nor ought the Crown to be burdened with the maintenance of such 
Bps, or put to more expence than what already lyes upon the Crown in 
providing Clergy for the Plantations. And yet there will not want 
means to provide a decent support for them by annexing some prefer- 
ments abroad to these Bishopricks and by giving the Bp. a capacity of 
receiving Benefactions from such as will be ready to promote so good 
a design. 

But as the care to maintain them will be premature till His Majesty's 



CHANDLER'S LETTERS, 1767. 345 

pleasure is known as to the appointing them it may wait His Majesty's 
determination. 

As the Bp. of London is generally supposed to be the Bp. principally 
if not only concern'd in the Plantations : He desires to say one word 
for himself, and to assure Your Majesty that however necessary to the 
state of Religion & the Churches abroad, he apprehends the settlem 1 of 
Bps, in America to be, and however sensible he is that with the Authority 
granted to the late Bishop of London, he co d by no means answer the 
good purposes intended by Your Majesty; yet he submits himself to 
your Royal Pleasure, and whatever part you in your royal wisdom shall 
think fit to allot to him, he will discharge it to the best of his ability. 

[Indorsed] 

Rec d with the Bishop's Ire of 19 Feb 7 . 1759. 
ReadFeb ry 21. 1759. 

V 

XIII. REV. THOMAS BRADBURY CHANDLER TO THE BISHOP 
OF LONDON, STATING HIS REASONS FOR WRITING THE 
APPEAL TO THE PUBLIC. 

From the Manuscripts in the Fulham Library. 

Elizabethtown, New Jersey, 

October 21, 1767. 

Having been prevailed upon to draw up, and publish, a Pamphlet 
on the Subject of an American Episcopate, I have taken the Liberty to 
send your Lordship a Copy of it, which is the Occasion of my being 
troublesome at this Time. The most that I can say in Favor of the 
Performance is, that it expresses the Opinion of the Clergy in most of 
the Colonies, of the Case of the American Church of England, and 
represents some of those Reasons and Facts, upon which their Opinion 
is founded. There are some other Facts and Reasons, which could not 
be prudently mentioned in a Work of this Nature, as the least Intimation 
of them would be of ill Consequence in this irritable Age and Country : 
but were they known, they would have a far greater Tendency to engage 
such of our Superiors, if there be any such, as are governed altogether 
by political Motives, to espouse the Cause of the Church of England in 
America, than any contained in the Pamphlet. But I must content 
myself with having proposed those only which could be mentioned 
safely, and leave the Event to Divine Providence. 

I could heartily wish, My Lord, that my feeble Attempt might be a 



; 



346 APPENDIX A. 

Means of engaging some Person at Home, who can command the Atten- 
tion of the Public, to take the Cause in Hand, and set it forth to Advantage. 
Even my Appeal it is hoped may have some good effect here ; but I fear 
it will hardly bear reading on the other side of the Atlantic. 



XIV. LEGISLATION OF THE PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN 
TO PROVIDE BISHOPS, PRIESTS, AND DEACONS FOR THE 
CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA. 

i. 

An Act to impower the Bishop of London for the Time being, or any 
other Bishop to be by him appointed, to admit to the Order of Deacon 
or Priest, Persons being Subjects or Citizens of Countries out of his 
Majesty's Dominions, without requiring them to take the Oath of Alle- 
giance as appointed by Law. 

Statutes at Large, 24 George III. Cap. XXXV. 

Whereas, by the Laws of this Realm, every Person who shall be 
admitted to Holy Orders is to take the Oath of Allegiance in Manner 
thereby provided : And whereas there are divers Persons, Subjects or 
Citizens of Countries out of his Majesty's Dominions, inhabiting and 
residing within the said Countries, who profess the Publick Worship of 
Almighty God according to the Liturgy of the Church of England, and 
are desirous that the Word of God, and the Sacraments, should con- 
tinue to be administered unto them according to the said Liturgy, by 
Subjects or Citizens of the said Countries, ordained according to the 
Form of Ordination in the Church of England; be it enacted by the 
King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advise and Consent of 
the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parlia- 
ment assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That, from and after 
the passing of this Act, it shall and may be lawful to and for the Bishop 
of London for the Time being, or any other Bishop by him to be 
appointed, to admit to the Order of Deacon or Priest, for the Purposes 
aforesaid, Persons being Subjects or Citizens of Countries out of his 
Majesty's Dominions, without requiring them to take the Oath of 
Allegiance. 

II. Provided always, and be it hereby declared, That no Person, 
ordained in the Manner herein before provided only, shall be thereby 



ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. 347 

enabled to exercise the Office of Deacon or Priest within his Majesty's 
Dominions. 

III. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That in the Letters 
Testimonial of Such Orders, there shall be inserted the Name of the 
Person so ordained, with the Addition of the Country whereof he is a 
Subject or Citizen, and the further Description of his not having taken 
the said Oath of Allegiance, being exempted from the Obligation of so 
doing by virtue of this Act. 

2. 

An Act to impower the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Arch- 
bishop of York, for the Time being, to consecrate to the Office of a 
Bishop, Persons being Subjects or Citizens of Countries out of his 
Majesty's Dominions. 

Statutes at Large, 26 George III. Cap. LXXXIV. 

Whereas, by the Laws of this Realm, no Person can be Consecrated 
to the Office of a Bishop without the King's License for his Election to 
that Office, and the Royal Mandate under the Great Seal for his Con- 
firmation and Consecration : And whereas every Person who shall be so 
consecrated to the said Office is required to take the Oaths of Allegiance 
and Supremacy, and also the Oath of due Obedience to the Archbishop : 
And whereas there are divers Persons, Subjects, or Citizens of Countries 
out of his Majesty's Dominions, and inhabiting and residing within the 
said Countries, who profess the Publick Worship of Almighty God, 
according to the Principles of the Church of England, and who, in 
order to provide a regular Succession of Ministers for the Service of 
their Church, are desirous of having certain of the Subjects or Citizens 
of those Countries consecrated Bishops, according to the Form of 
Consecration in the Church of England-. Be it enacted by the King's 
most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the 
Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament 
assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That from and after the 
passing of this Act, it shall and may be lawful to and for the Archbishop 
of Canterbury, or the Archbishop of York, for the Time being, together 
with such other Bishops as they shall call to their Assistance, to conse- 
crate Persons, being Subjects or Citizens of Countries out of his Majesty's 
Dominions, Bishops, for the Purposes aforesaid, without the King's 
License for their Election, or the Royal Mandate, under the Great Seal, 
for their Confirmation and Consecration, and without requiring them to 



348 APPENDIX A. 

take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, and the Oath of Obedience 
to the Archbishop for the Time being. 

II. Provided always, That no Persons shall be consecrated Bishops 
in the Manner herein provided, until the Archbishop of Canterbury, or 
the Archbishop of York, for the Time being, shall have first applied for 
and obtained his Majesty's License, by Warrant under his Royal Signet 
and Sign Manual, authorizing and empowering him to perform such 
Consecration, and expressing the Name or Names of the Persons so to 
be consecrated, nor until the said Archbishop has been fully ascertained 
of their Sufficiency in good Learning, of the Soundness of their Faith, 
and of the Purity of their Manners. 

III. Provided also, and be it hereby declared, That no Person or 
Persons consecrated to the Office of a Bishop in the Manner aforesaid, 
nor any Person or Persons deriving their Consecration from or under 
any Bishop so consecrated, nor any Person or Persons admitted to the 
Order of Deacon or Priest by any Bishop or Bishops so consecrated, or 
by the Successor or Successors of any Bishop or Bishops so consecrated, 
shall be thereby enabled to exercise his or their respective Office or 
Offices within his Majesty's Dominions. 

IV. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That a Certificate 
of such Consecration shall be given under the Hand and Seal of the 
Archbishop who consecrates, containing the Name of the Person so 
consecrated, with the Addition, as well of the Country whereof he is a 
Subject or Citizen, as of the Church in which he is appointed Bishop, 
and the further Description of his not having taken the said Oaths, being 
exempted from the Obligation of so doing by virtue of this Act. 



APPENDIX B. 

LIST OF THE ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY AND BISHOPS 

OF LONDON DURING THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGH- 
TEENTH CENTURIES. 1 

Archbishops of Canterbury. 

Richard Bancroft 1604 

George Abbot 1611 

William Laud ......... 1633 

William Juxon ......... 1660 

Gilbert Sheldon 1663 

William Sancroft 1677 

John Tillotson ......... 1691 

Thomas Tenison . . . 1695 

William Wake . . . . . . . . . 1716 

John Potter 1737 

Thomas Herring 1747 

Matthew Hutton . . 1757 

Thomas Seeker . . 1758 

Frederick Cornwallis . . 1768 

John Moore 1 783-1805 

Bishops of London. 

Thomas Ravis 1607 

George Abbot 1609 

John King 161 1 

George Monteigne 1621 

William Laud 1628 

William Juxon ......... J 633 

Gilbert Sheldon . . . 1660 

Humphrey Henchman . . 1663 

Henry Compton 1675 

John Robinson 1713 

Edmund Gibson 1723 

Thomas Sherlock 1 748 

Thomas Hayter 1761 

Richard Osbaldeston 1762 

Richard Terrick 1764 

Robert Lowth 1 777-1 787 

1 Stubbs, Registrum, 2d ed., 111-146; Le Neve, Fasti, L, 26-31, II., 303-306; 
Perceval, Succession, Appendix, 106-121; Abbey, English Church and Bishops, II., 
Appendix, pp. 357, 359 (for eighteenth century). 



APPENDIX C. 
A LIST OF SPECIAL WORKS. 

This bibliography aims to include all books, manuscripts, pamphlets, 
newspapers, periodicals, broadsides, official records, or other collections 
of material which contain important information regarding the relations 
between the Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies. It has 
not been thought necessary to repeat here the titles of works which are 
necessarily consulted by students of any phase of American colonial 
history. 

Among the great American and English libraries the author has found 
the following most useful : the Harvard University Library, the Boston 
Public Library, the library of the Massachusetts Historical Society, the 
Boston Athenaeum, the John Carter Brown Library of Providence, the 
Bishop of London's library at Fulham, the Archbishop of Canterbury's 
library at Lambeth, the British Museum, and the Public Record Office at 
London. The Fulham and Lambeth libraries and the British Museum 
were especially rich in hitherto unpublished manuscripts and rare 
pamphlets, some of which are to be found printed in appendices to 
this work. 

For all matters relating to the history of the Episcopal Church in 
America the student is primarily and chiefly indebted to Francis Lister 
Hawks and William Stevens Perry, pioneers in this field both as historians 
and historiographers. The value of their histories, for the purposes of 
the present writer at least, consisted mainly in the documents or extracts 
there printed. But these collections, largely made up of transcripts from 
the Fulham and Lambeth manuscripts and the letter books of the So- 
ciety for Propagating the Gospel, are not altogether adequate. In the 
first place, they contain practically no material on New Hampshire, 
Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, the Carolinas, or Georgia — the 
printing of the Carolina series was begun, but, owing to a lack of funds, 
was never finished. In the second place, many documents of an inter- 
colonial character, such as did not primarily concern any of the particular 
colonies included in the collection, find no place. And finally, even in 
the case of particular colonies, there are a few important omissions. 



LIST OF SPECIAL WORKS. 35 1 

Oftentimes, too, the extracts given are provokingly short for the purposes 
of the present study. 

Besides the manuscripts and pamphlets in the English libraries 
enumerated above, and the printed collections of Perry and Hawks, the 
records of the various colonies furnish much valuable and interesting 
material. Specially worthy of note are the documents relating to the 
Colonial History of New York, the New Jersey Archives, the Pennsyl- 
vania Archives, and the Colonial Records of North Carolina. It is 
unfortunate that the North Carolina Records have no index; but the 
serious student will be well repaid for turning the ten thousand odd pages 
of this extremely valuable work. 

The publications of some of the historical societies contain much that 
is of use. This is particularly true in the case of the Massachusetts, 
Virginia, New York, South Carolina, and Protestant Episcopal Histori- 
cal Societies. 

Another fertile source, especially on the subject of the attempt to 
introduce bishops, are the publications of the Society for Propagating 
the Gospel, notably the series of annual sermons and abstracts of pro- 
ceedings. Of these latter the John Carter Brown Library has a com- 
plete set. 

Abbey, C. J. The English Church and Bishops in the Eighteenth 
Century. 2 vols. London, 1887. 

An Address from the Clergy of New York and New Jersey to the 
Episcopalians in Virginia. New York, 17 71. 

The Humble Address of the Right Honorable the Lords Spiritual and 
Temporal, in Parliament assembled, presented to her Majesty the 
Queen, on Wednesday, the Thirteenth Day of March, 1705, relating to 
the Province of South Carolina, and the Petition therein mentioned, with 
her Majesty's Most Gracious Answer thereunto, pp. 4. London, 1705. 

An x\dvertisement. [Being an Attack on Mayhew's Observations.] 
Providence, 1763. 

The American Whig, A Collection of Tracts from the Late News- 
papers, etc. 2 vols. John Holt, New York, 1768, 1769. 

Anderson, J. S. M. History of the Colonial Churches. 3 vols. 
London, 1848. 

An Appendix to the Life of Archbishop Seeker. American edition. 
New York, 1774. 

Apthorp, East. Considerations on the Character and Conduct of 
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. Boston, 1763. 



352 APPENDIX C. 

Apthorp, East. A Review of Dr. Mayhew's Remarks on the Answer 
to his Observations, etc. London, 1765. 

Baldwin, Simeon E. The American Jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
London in Colonial Times, American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, 
New Series, xiii. 179-221. Worcester, 1900. 

Beach, John. A Calm and Dispassionate Vindication of the Profes- 
sors of the Church of England. 1 749. 

Beach, John. A Continuation of the Calm and Dispassionate Vindi- 
cation of the Church of England against Mr. Noah Hobart. Boston, 

I75 1 - 

Beardsley, E. E. History of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut 
[1635-1865]. 2 vols. New York, 1883. 

Beardsley, E. E. Life and Correspondence of Samuel Johnson, D.D., 
Missionary of the Church of England in Connecticut and First Presi- 
dent of King's College. Boston, 1881. 

Beardsley, E. E. Life and Times of William Samuel Johnson, LL.D. 
New York, 1876. 

Blackburne, Francis. A Critical Commentary on Archbishop 
Seeker's Letter to Horatio Walpole. London, 1770. 

Bradford, Alden. Memoir of the Life and Writings of the Reverend 
Jonathan Mayhew. Boston, 1838. 

Bray, Thomas. The Acts of Dr. Bray's Visitation held at Annapolis 
in Maryland, May 23, 24, 25, Anno 1700. [Dedicated to the Bishop of 
London.] London, 1700. 

Bray, Thomas. A Memorial representing the Present State of Re- 
ligion on the Continent of North America. London, 1701. 

Browne, Arthur. Remarks on Dr. Mayhew's Incidental Reflections 
relative to the Church of England as contained in his Observations, etc. 
By a Son of the Church of England. Portsmouth, 1763. 

Caner, Henry. A Candid Examination of Dr. Mayhew's Observa- 
tions concerning the Character and Conduct of the Society for the 
Propagation of the Gospel. [With an Appendix containing a Vindica- 
tion of the Society by one of its Members — Samuel Johnson.] Boston, 

1763- 

Caswall, Henry. America and the American Church. 2d ed. 
London, 185 1. 

Caswall, Henry. The American Church and the American Union. 
London, 1861. 

Chandler, Thomas B. An Appeal to the Public in behalf of the 
Church of England in America. New York, 1767. 



LIST OF SPECIAL WORKS. 353 

Chandler, Thomas B. An Appeal defended : or, The Proposed 
Episcopate Vindicated. New York, 1769. 

Chandler, Thomas B. An Appeal farther defended, in Answer to 
the Farther Misrepresentations of Dr. Chauncy. New York, 1771. 

Chandler, Thomas B. A Free Examination of the Critical Commen- 
tary on Archbishop Seeker's Letter to Mr. Walpole [by F. Blackburne]. 
With a copy of Bishop Sherlock's Memorial. New York, 1774. 

Chandler, Thomas B. The Life of Samuel Johnson, the First Presi- 
dent of King's College in New York. New York, 1805. 

Chauncy, Charles. An Appeal to the Public Answered, in behalf of 
the Non-episcopal Churches in America. Boston, 1768. 

Chauncy, Charles. A Reply to Dr. Chandler's Appeal defended. 
Boston, 1770. 

Chauncy, Charles. A Letter to a Friend containing Remarks 
on Certain Passages in a Sermon preached by the Rt. Rev. John, 
Lord Bishop of LlandarT, before the Society for the Propagation of the 
Gospel at their Anniversary Meeting, 20 Feb., 1767, in which the 
Highest Reproach is undeservedly cast on the American Colonies. 
Boston, 1767. 

Clark, Samuel A. History of St. John's Church, Elizabethtown, N. J., 
from 1703 to the Present Time. New York and Philadelphia, 1857. 

Collier, Jeremy. Ecclesiastical History of England. 2 vols. Lon- 
don, 1 708-1 7 14. 

Cornelison, I. A. The Relation of Religion to Civil Government 
in the United States. New York and London, 1895. 

Cutts, E. L. A Dictionary of the Church of England. London, 1887. 

Dalcho, Frederick. An Historical Account of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church in South-Carolina from the First Settlement of the Prov- 
ince to the War of the Revolution. Charleston, S.C., 1820. 

Eliot, Andrew. Remarks on the Bishop of Oxford's [Seeker's] 
Sermon before the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign 
Parts. Boston, 1740. [Also in Massachusetts Historical Society Col- 
lections, Vol. II, 2d Series, pp. 190-216. Extracts were published in 
England by Rev. Francis Blackburne.] 

Evans, H. D., Ed. Bishop Christopher Wordsworth's Theophilus 
Americanus. Philadelphia, 1859. 

Fleming, Caleb. A Supplement to a Letter to a Friend, by a Pres- 
byter in Old England. London, 1768. 

Foote, H. W. Annals of King's Chapel. [2d vol. completed by 
H. H. Edes.] 2 vols. Boston, 1882-1896. 

23 



354 APPENDIX C. 

Fowler, William C. Article on Charles Chauncy (i 705-1 787) in 
Charles Chauncy, his Ancestors and Descendants. (New England His- 
torical and Genealogical Register.) October, 1856. Vol. X., pp. 323-329. 

Fuller, Thos. Church History of -Britain to 1648. Ed. J. L. Brewer. 
4th ed. 6 vols. Oxford, 1845. 

Gwatkin, Thomas. A Letter to the Clergy of New York and New 
Jersey, occasioned by an Address to the Episcopalians in Virginia. 
Williamsburgh, 1772. 

Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton. The Present State of Virginia. 
London, 1727. 

Hawkins, Ernest. Historical Notices of the Missions of the Church 
of England in America to 1783. London, 1845. 

Hawks, F. L. Contributions to American Church History. 2 vols. 
I. Virginia. II. Maryland. New York, 1 836-1 839. 

Hawks, F. L. Efforts to obtain a Colonial Episcopate before the 
Revolution. In Protestant Episcopal Historical Society Collection, I. 
136-157. 2 vols. New York, 185 1-1853. 

Hawks, F. L., and Perry, W. S. Documentary History of the 
Church in the United States. Connecticut. 2 vols. New York, 1863- 
1864. 

Hawks, F. L., and Perry, W. S. No. i of South Carolina [incom- 
plete]. New York, 1862. 

Heylyn, Peter. Cyprianus Anglicus, or the History of the Life and 
Death of William Laud. 2d ed. London, 167 1. 

Hobart, Noah. A Serious Address to the Members of the Episco- 
pal Separation in New England. Boston, 1 748. 

Hobart, Noah. A Second Address to the Members of the Episco- 
pal Separation in New England. [Appendix by Moses Dickinson.] 
Boston, 1 75 1. 

Hooker, Richard. An Account of the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
London in the Foreign Plantations. Weekly Miscellany, Vol. I., No. n, 
pp. 79-86. [Only 2 vols, of this Magazine appeared.] London, 1736- 

1738. 

Hoyt, A. H. Sketch of the Life of T. B. Chandler [1 726-1 790]. 
Boston, 1873. [Reprinted from the New England Historical and Gene- 
alogical Register for July, 1873, Vol. XXVII. , pp. 227-236.] 

Humphreys, David. An Historical Account of the Society for the 
Propagation of the Gospel. London, 1730. Reprinted New York, 1853. 
[The chapter on South Carolina is printed in Carroll's Historical Col- 
lections.] 



LIST OF SPECIAL WORKS. 355 

Inglis, Charles. A Vindication of the Bishop of Llandaff 's Sermon. 
New York, 1768. 

Johnson, Samuel. Elements of Philosophy. [The English edition 
contains at the end a letter entitled, Impartial Thoughts on an Ameri- 
can Episcopate.] London, 1 754. 

Jones, Hugh. The Present State of Virginia. London, 1724. 

Laud, William. Autobiography. Oxford, 1839. 

Leaming, J. A Defence of the Episcopal Government of the Church. 
New York, 1766. 

Le Neve, John. Fasti Ecclesise Anglicanae, or a Calendar of the 
Principal Ecclesiastical Dignitaries in England and Wales, etc. 3 vols. 
Oxford, 1854. 

A Letter to the Reverend Father in God The Lord B p of L n, 

occasioned by a letter of his Lordship's to the L -ds of T e, on 

the Subject of an Act of Assembly passed in the Year 1748, entitled an 
Act to Enable the Inhabitants of this Colony to discharge their Publick 
Dues in Money for the Ensuing Year. From Virginia. Pub. 1767. 

Livingstone, William. A Letter to John, Bishop of Llandaff, occa- 
sioned by his Sermon, February 20, 1767, in which the American Colo- 
nies are loaded with Reproach. London, 1768. 

McConnell, S. D. History of the American Episcopal Church, 
from the Planting of the Colonies to the End of the Civil War. New 
York, 1 89 1. 

Mayhew, Jonathan. Observations on the Charter and Conduct of the 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. London and Boston, 1 763. 

Mayhew, Jonathan. Defence of the Character and Conduct, etc., 
against a Candid Examination of Dr. Mayhew's Observations, etc., and 
against a Letter to a Friend. Boston, 1763. 

Mayhew, Jonathan. Remarks on an Anonymous Tract, entitled an 
Answer to Dr. Mayhew's Observations, etc. Boston, 1764. London, 

1765. 

Miller, Samuel. Memoirs of Rev. John Rogers. New York, 181 3. 

Minutes of a Convention of Delegates from the Synods of New York 
and Philadelphia and from the Associations of Connecticut, held annually, 
1 766-1 7 75. Hartford, 1843. 

Motley, Daniel Esten. Life of Commissary James Blair, Founder 
of William and Mary College, Johns Hopkins University Studies in 
Historical and Political Science, Series XIX., No. 10. Baltimore, 1901. 

Perceval, A. P. An Apology for the Doctrine of Apostolic Succes- 
sion. New York, 1839. 



356 APPENDIX C. 

Perry, G. G. A History of the Church of England. Appendix on 
the Church of England in America by J. A. Spencer. New York, 

1879. 

Perry, William Stevens. Bishop Seabury and Bishop Provost. 1862. 

Perry, W. S. The Connection of the Church of England with Early 
American Discovery. Portland, Me., 1863. 

Perry, W. S. The Episcopate in America. New York, 1895. 

Perry, W. S. Historical Collections relating to the American Colo- 
nial Church. 5 vols. I. Virginia. II. Pennsylvania. III. Massachu- 
setts. IV., V. Maryland, Delaware. Hartford, 18 70-1 8 78. 

Perry, W. S. The History of the American Episcopal Church [1587— 
1883]. 2 vols. Boston, 1885. 

Porteus, Beilby. A Review of the Life and Character of Arch- 
bishop Seeker. London, 1797. 

Royce, M. S. Historical Sketch of the Church of England and of 
the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. New York, 1859. 

A Protestant Dissenter of Old England. The Claims of the 
Church of England Seriously Examined, in a Letter to the Author 
[Thomas Seeker] of an Answer, etc. London, 1764. 

Secker, Thomas. An Answer to Dr. Mayhew's Observations on the 
Charter and Conduct of the Society. London, 1764. 

Sherlock, Thomas. A Letter to the Rt. Hon. Horatio Walpole. 
London, 1769. 

Sharpe, Granville. Memoirs, Ed. Prince Hoare. 2d ed. 2 vols. 
London, 1820. Ibid., 1828. 

Sherlock, Thomas. A Circular Letter to the Commissaries, 19 Sep- 
tember, 1750. [In Appendix to Chandler's Johnson; also in his Free 
Examination^ 

Society for Propagating the Gospel. Abstracts of the Proceedings 
of the Society appended to the Sermon preached at the Annual Meetings 
held in the parish church of St. Mary-le-Bow. [1701 to 1783, passim.'] 

Society for Propagating the Gospel. An Account of the Society. 
London, 1706. 

Society for Propagating the Gospel. A Collection of Papers. 
London, 1715. 

Society for Propagating the Gospel. Classified Digest of the 
Records, 1 701-1892. Compiled by C. F. Pascoe. 3d ed. London, 

i893. 

Society for Propagating the Gospel, The Results of 180 Years' 
Work of. London, 1882. 



LIST OF SPECIAL WORKS. 357 

Stevens, Abel. A History of the Religious Movement of the Eigh- 
teenth Century called Methodism. 3 vols. New York, 185 8-1 861. 

Stille, Charles J. Address at the Bicentennial of Christ Church, 
Philadelphia, in a Memorial of the Proceedings. Published by the 
Christ Church Historical Association. Philadelphia, 1896. 

Stubbs, William. Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum. 2d ed. Oxford, 
1897. 

Tiffany, C. C. A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 
United States of America. New York, 1895. [There is a good bibli- 
ography of works relating to the history of the American Episcopal 
Church on pp. xvi.-xxiv.] 

Turell, Ebenezer. Life and Character of the late Reverend Dr. 
Benjamin Coleman. Boston, 1749. [Contains the Letter of the Hamp- 
shire clergymen to the Bishop of London.] 

Tyerman, L. The Life of the Rev. George Whitefield. 2 vols. 
London, 1876-1877. 

Virginia's Cure, Dedicated to Sheldon, Bishop of London, and Morley, 
Bishop of Winchester. 1662. 

Welles, Noah. The Real Advantages which Ministers and People 
may enjoy, especially in the Colonies, by Conforming to the Church 
of England, Faithfully considered and represented in a Letter to a 
Young Gentleman. 1762. 

Welles, Noah. A Vindication of the Validity and Divine Right of 
Presbyterian Ordination. New Haven, 1767. 

Wetmore, James. Vindication of the Professors of the Church of 
England in Connecticut 1747. 

White, William. Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the United States. [Ed. B. F. De Costa.] New York, 1880. 

Wilberforce, Samuel. History of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in America. New York, 1849. 



INDEX. 



Abbot, George, Bishop of London, 1609- 
161 1, a grantee of the second Virginia 
charter, in 1609, 10. 

Adams, John, his views regarding the im- 
portance of the ecclesiastical causes of 
the Revolution, 159, 269. 

Alison, Francis, apprehends the speedy 
introduction of bishops, 1766, 221. 
See also " Centinel." 

American episcopate. See Resident 
bishops. 

American Methodist Episcopal Church, 
its beginnings, 267. 

American Revolution, effect of the Epis- 
copal controversies in causing, 268- 
272. See also Episcopal controversies. 

"American Whig," a contributor to the 
newspaper controversy, 1768- 1769, 195, 
publishes his first article, March 14, 
1768, 196; couples ecclesiastical and 
political issues, 196-200; asserts that 
there is widespread popular opposition 
to the introduction of bishops, 200-201. 

"Anatomist," the chief opponent of the 
" Centinel," 196, answers the " Centi- 
nel's" arguments, 207-209; formulates 
two conclusions to be drawn from the 
newspaper controversy, 209-210. 

Andros, Gov. Edmund, report on the 
church in New England, 28; relations 
with Commissary Blair, 43. 

Apthorp, East, publishes his Considera- 
tions, 1763, the first contribution to the 
Mayhew controversy, 146; his Review 
of Dr. Mayhew's Remarks, the last 
contribution to the Mayhew contro- 
versy, 158. 

Asbury. See Coke. 

Ashe, John, his mission to England, 1704, 
46-47. 

Association. See Convention of Dele- 
gates. 

" Atlanticus " asserts in the London 
Chronicle, 1 768, that there is no like- 



lihood of bishops being sent to the 
American colonies, 212. 

Baptists, Chandler asserts that those of 
Massachusetts and Connecticut would 
welcome American bishops, 185— 
186. 

Baxter, Richard, Chauncy's quotation from 
his Treatise of Episcopacy, 179. 

Beach, John, publishes his Calm and Dis- 
passionate Vindication, 143; his argu- 
ment, 143-144; replies to Hobart's 
Second Address, 144. 

Berkeley, George, suggests that Seabury 
apply to the Scotch non-jurors, 265. 

Berkeley, Sir Wm., Governor of Virginia, 
articles relating to religion in his in- 
structions, 1650, 17. 

Bishops, functions in the Church of Eng- 
land, 2-8. For attempts to introduce 
into the colonies, see Resident bishops. 

"Bishop's Palace," 155-156. 

Blackburne, Francis, writes A Critical 
Commentary in answer to Seeker's 
Letter, 1770, 189-190. 

Blair, James, appointed commissary of 
Virginia in 1689, 34; relations with 
Governors Andros and Nicholson, 43; 
relations with the Virginia clergy dur- 
ing Bishop Robinson's regime, 43-44; 
sends Gibson an account of his work 
under Compton and Robinson, 1724, 
78; commissarial authority during the 
Gibson period, 78-80; death in 1743, 80. 

Bland, Richard, asserts, 1771, that the 
king has assented to an Act of Assem- 
bly empowering the general court of 
Virginia to exercise both ecclesiastical 
and civil jurisdiction, 227; reference 
to, 230. 

Boone, Joseph, memorial against the 
South Carolina Church Acts of 1704, 
47-48. 

Boucher, Jonathan, extract from his View 



ABBOT TO COLMAN, BENJAMIN. 



359 



of the Causes and Consequences of the 
American Revolution, 1797, 269. 

Bray, Thomas, appointed commissary of 
Maryland, in 1 695, 34; influence of his 
Memorial, 34, 93; fails to secure the 
appointment of a successor, 39-40. 

Browne, Arthur, his Remarks on May- 
hew's Observations, 1 50-1 51. 

Brunskill, John, deprived of his living for 
irregularities of conduct, 136-137. 

Bull, W. T., commissary of the Carolinas, 
1 71 6-1 723, 48-49. 

Butler, Joseph, Bishop of Durham, plan 
for the establishment of an American 
episcopate, 1750, 122-124. $ ee a ^ so 
Caner, Henry, and Cutler, Timothy. 

Calvert, Governor, vetoes a bill passed 
by the Maryland Assembly, 1724, to set 
up a court for the exercise of ecclesias- 
tical jurisdiction, 75-76. 

Camm, John, leader of the episcopal party 
among the Virginia clergy, 231 ff. 

Caner, Henry, rector of King's Chapel, 
Boston, approves of Butler's plan of 
1750, 124; his Candid Examination of 
Mayhew's Observations, 150; wants a 
bishop for New England, 1751, 156; 
report on the weakness of the Church 
in Massachusetts, 1763, 258; extracts 
from his reply to Sherlock's circular 
letter, 1 751, 317-318. 

Canterbury, Archbishop of, to issue testi- 
monial to emigrants, 1637,20; tempora- 
rily vested with the Bishop of London's 
colonial jurisdiction, 32 ; list of the 
archbishops occupying the see during 
the seventeenth and eighteenth centu- 
ries, 349. See also Laud, Sancroft, 
Seeker, and Tennison. 

" Centinel," a contributor to the news- 
paper controversy, 1 768-1 769, 195, 
apprehends civil dangers from the intro- 
duction of bishops, 203-204; his his- 
torical argument, 205-206. 

Chamberlain, Mellen, discussion of his 
view of the ecclesiastical causes of the 
American Revolution, 269-272. 

Chandler, T. B., views on the political 
consequences of withholding bishops 
from the colonies, 113-114; reasons 
for writing the Appeal to the Public, 



164-165; writes a private letter to the 
Bishop of London on the political im- 
portance of securing resident bishops, 
1767, 165-167; his compact with Sea- 
bury and Inglis, 166; summary and dis- 
cussion of the Appeal, 1767, 167-172; 
his Appeal Defended, 1769, 176-179; his 
Appeal Farther Defended, 1771, 182- 
186; evidence of his loyalist sympa- 
thies, 183-184; his Free Examination 
of Blackburne's Critical Commentary, 
1774, 190-192; his assertions as to the 
extent of the opposition to bishops 
denied by the "American Whig," 200- 
201; argues that an American episco- 
pate would be a bond of union with the 
mother country, 251; text of his letter 
to Bishop Terrick, stating his reasons 
for writing the Appeal to the Public, 
1767. 345-346. 

Chandler-Chauncy controversy, 164 ff. 

Charles I. See Proclamations. 

Chauncy, Charles, answers assertions of 
Bishop Ewer, in a Letter to a Friend, 
1767, 1 61-163; publishes the Appeal 
Answered,' 1 768, 172; his arguments, 
172-176; his Reply to Dr. Chandler's 
" Appeal Defended," 1770, 179-182. 

Checkley, John, controversy with the 
Massachusetts Independents, 1723- 
1727, 66-67; reference to, 140. 

Christ Church, Philadelphia, patriotic 
utterances of its clergy in a letter 
written in 1 775, 207. See Clerical ap- 
pointments, McClenaghan, Wm., and 
Philips, Francis. 

Clerical appointments, in the royal col- 
onies, 5-6; in Maryland, 6; in the 
Northern and Middle colonies, 7. See 
also McClenaghan, Wm. 

Coke and Asbury,'the first superintendents 
of the American Methodists, 267. 

Colbatch, a Maryland clergyman, pre- 
vented from going to England for 
Episcopal consecration in 1727, 105. 

Colman, Benjamin, letters from Bishop 
Kennett relative to the introduction of 
bishops, 99; views on the status of the 
establishment in New England, 128; 
writes to Bishop Gibson in behalf of the 
associated ministers of Hampshire 
County, 1734, 140. 



3<5o 



INDEX. 



Colonies, number of Episcopal clergymen 
in, 1 67 1 and 1700, 33; estimate of the 
number of Episcopalians, clergy, and 
parishes about 1767, 169. 

Commissary, functions and origin of the 
office in the colonies, 2-3; exercise of 
powers in the colonies, 59 ; duties 
defined in the Methodus Procedendi, 
1728, 61-63; President Nelson dis- 
cusses their powers, 1 770-1 771, 228- 
230; Dr. Smith advocates their restora- 
tion, 1762, 247; see also Blair, Bray, 
Bull, Camm, Dawson, Thos. and Wm., 
Garden, Gordon, Henderson, Horrocks, 
Johnson, Gideon, Morell, Price, Robin- 
son, Wm., Wilkinson. 

Commission for governing the colonies, 
first form issued 1634, 18-20; second 
form issued 1636, 20; reprint of an 
English translation of the Commission 
of 1634, 274-277. See also Royal Com- 
mission of 1728. 

Compton, Henry, Bishop of London, 
1675-1713, aims to ascertain the basis of 
his colonial authority, 15, 25; consulted 
on the condition of the Maryland 
church in 1676, 24; translated to Lon- 
don in 1675, 25; evinces interest in 
the colonial church, 25; clauses in 
governors' instructions relating to his 
control over colonial ministers and 
schoolmasters, 26, 29, 30; Memorial of 
1677, 26-27; efforts in behalf of the 
colonial church, 28-29; seeks authori- 
zation for his colonial jurisdiction, 29; 
secures recognition of his jurisdiction in 
instructions to colonial governors, 30; 
temporarily deprived of his see in 1686, 
32; restored to his see and colonial 
authority, 33; appoints commissaries, 
33—34; share in founding the Society 
in 1 701, 35; secures recognition of the 
church in the Pennsylvania charter, 
1680-1681, 36, 37; connection with 
the South Carolina Church Acts of 
1704, 48; summary of his work, 51; 
Observations concerning a suffragan for 
America, 1707, 97-98; reprint of their 
text, 277-278; text of the order of 1686, 
suspending him from the exercise of his 
authority in the colonies, 283. 

Convention of the Clergy of New York 



and New Jersey, origin and purpose, 
164-165, 215-216; Chandler prints its 
petitions of 1 765 for bishops, 1 771, 183; 
its motives for desiring bishops ques- 
tioned, 202-203; urges the clergy of 
the Southern colonies to apply for 
bishops, 231; Address to the Episco- 
palians in Virginia, 1771, 236-238; 
urges the necessity of bishops to pre- 
serve the colonies from revolt, 1771, 
251. 

Convention of Delegates, organized to 
prevent the introduction of bishops, 
217; professed object, 217-218; its 
first sitting, 1766, 218; letter appended 
to the minutes of its first meeting, 218- 
220; letter to the London Dissenting 
Committee defining its aims, 1768, 221- 
223; states its position on the intro- 
duction of bishops, 222-223; appoints 
standing committees of correspondence, 
223; ceases to sit at the outbreak of 
the Revolution, 225. 

Convention of the New York and New 
Jersey Presbyterians and Connecticut 
Congregationalists. See Convention of 
Delegates. 

Cooper, Myles, visits the Southern colonies 
to agitate the introduction of American 
bishops, 231. 

" Country Clergyman," his view of the 
nature of the episcopal office, 211-212. 

" Crito " couples episcopacy and monarchy 
together, 1768, 213. 

Culpeper, Lord, Governor of Virginia, 
articles relating to religion in instruc- 
tions, 26. 

Cutler, Timothy, rector of Christ's Church, 
Boston, petitions against the holding of 
a synod of the New England churches, 
1725, 67-68; becomes an Episcopalian, 
102; joins in the movement for an 
American episcopate, 103; approves 
of Butler's plan of 1750, 124; wants a 
bishop for New England, 1751, 156; 
extracts from his reply to Sherlock's 
circular letter, 1751, 316-317. 

Dawson, Thomas, appointed commissary 
of Virginia, 1752, 136; lack of author- 
ity, 136; connection with the Brunskill 
case, 136-137. 



COLONIES TO GIBSON, EDMUND. 



361 



Dawson, William, succeeds Blair as presi- 
dent of William and Mary College and 
commissary in 1743, 80. 

Delft, the church at, 15. 

Dickinson, John, a contributor to the 
Newspaper Controversy of 1 768-1 769, 

195- 

Dissenting Committee of London, letters 
to the convention of Delegates, 223-225. 

Eliot, Andrew, Remarks upon the Bishop 
of Oxford's Sermon, 109-1 10. 

English Dissenters, influence in defeating 
the project of sending bishops to Amer- 
ica, 256-257. 

English Government, motives in withhold- 
ing resident bishops, 255-258. 

Episcopacy, discussions of its relation to 
independence, 106-108, 113-1 14, 166- 
167, 251-252, 254-255. 

Episcopacy and the Revolution, 157, 268- 
272. 

Episcopal clergymen, estimated number 
in the colonies about 1679, 28; in 1767, 
169. 

Episcopal controversies, origin in New 
England, 139- 140; change in their 
character with the beginning of the 
newspaper contributions, 197, 199- 
200; influence in bringing on the 
American Revolution, 268-272. 

Episcopalians, estimated number in the 
colonies in 1767, 169. 

Episcopate. See Resident bishops. 

Establishment, provisions for in Virginia, 
9, 11, 16-17; status in the colonies dis- 
cussed, 69-70, 127-128. See also New 
England, New York, North Carolina, 
and South Carolina. _ 

Evans, Evan, appeals to the Society for 
resident bishops, 1707,95-97. 

Ewer, John, Bishop of Llandaff, urges the 
necessity of American bishops in a ser- 
mon before the Society, 1767, 161, 191. 

Fauquier, Governor of Virginia, connec- 
tion with the Ramsay case, 227. 

Franklin, Benjamin, applies to the 
French bishops and the pope's nuncio 
at Paris for advice concerning Amer- 
ican candidates for English orders, 
263-264. 



Garden, Alexander, appointed commis- 
sary of the Carolinas, 1726, 49; his 
commissarial activity, 80; trial and sen- 
tence of George Whitefield, 80-86; re- 
signs his commissarial office in 1749, 86; 
dies at Charleston, 1756, 87; text of 
his reply to Sherlock's circular letter of 
1750, together with a letter to Gibson 
of 1741, 312-315. 

Gibson, Edmund, Bishop of London, 
1 723-1 748, obtains a Royal Commission 
for exercising colonial jurisdiction, 1 727- 
1728,12,57; accession, 52; expressions 
of interest in the colonies, 52; sends out 
queries to the commissaries, 52-53; ap- 
peals to the crown to establish his juris- 
diction on a more definite basis, 55-57; 
clauses inserted in the instructions of the 
colonial governors relative to the pow- 
ers granted him by the Royal Commis- 
sion of 1728, 60; issues the Methodus 
Procedendi, 1 728, 61-63; issues a procla- 
mation on the qualifications of clergy- 
men applying for licenses for service 
in the colonies, 1743, 63-64; attitude 
toward him in Massachusetts, 64-65; 
queries concerning the church in Mas- 
sachusetts answered by Samuel Myles, 
rector of King's Chapel, Boston, 65-66; 
connection with the Checkley contro- 
versy, 66-67; opposition to the proposed 
New England synod, 68-70; limitations 
of his jurisdiction in Maryland, 71-73; 
quarrels with the Maryland proprietary 
and ceases to interest himself in that 
province, 77; petitions crown in 1724 
concerning presentations and induc- 
tions in Virginia, 79; summary of his 
policy and work, 87; attitude on the 
subject of an American episcopate, 103, 
105, 117; offers ,£1000 toward the sup- 
port of an American bishop, 1745, 
no-ill; references to his Patent by 
President Nelson, 1770, 1771, 228- 
230; letter to, from commissary Gor- 
don, discussing the origin and scope of 
the Bishop of London's jurisdiction, 
1725, 279-282; copy of a letter from, 
to Lord Howard, of Effingham, gover- 
nor of Virginia, 1685, 282; extracts 
from the Weekly Miscellany relating to 
his efforts to place his jurisdiction on a 



362 



INDEX. 



legal basis, 283-285; text of his peti- 
tion to that effect, 285-286; text of 
the royal commission granted to him 
in 1728, 289-293. 

Gordon, William, commissary of the Bar- 
badoes, discusses the origin and scope 
of the Bishop of London's authority, 
31, 53-55; extracts from his letters on 
this subject, 279-282. 

Governors, ecclesiastical powers in the 
colonies, 4-5. 

Green, John, Bishop of Lincoln, advo- 
cates American bishops in a sermon 
before the Society, 1768, 191. 

Gwatkin, Thomas, joint protest with Sam- 
uel Henley against the introduction of 
bishops, 1771, 232-234; letter to the 
clergy of New York and New Jersey, 
1772, 238-240. 

Hamburgh, the church at, 15. 

Hampshire county, ministers' petition in 
1734 against sending missionaries of 
the Society to New England, 140. 

Hart, Governor, recommends the appoint- 
ment of two commissaries for Mary- 
land in 1715, 41. 

Hayter, Thomas, Bishop of London, 1761- 
1762, 241. 

Henderson, Jacob, appointed commissary 
for the Western Shore of Maryland in 
1 716, 41 ; made commissary for all 
Maryland, 1730, 76 ; difficulties in the 
exercise of his office, 76; resigns in 

1734, 77- 

Henley, Samuel. See Gwatkin. 

Hewitt and Bland, their apprehensions 
concerning the political consequences 
of the establishment of bishops, 240. 

Hobart, Noah, preaches a sermon reflect- 
ing on the missionary work of the So- 
ciety, 1746, 1 40-14 1 ; publishes his 
Serious Address, 141 ; analysis of his 
argument, 141-143 ; his Second Ad- 
dress, 144. 

Hollis, Thomas, views on the episcopal 
question, 1765, 158-159. 

" Horatio," utterances on toleration, 1768, 
208-209. 

Horrocks, commissary, summons the Vir- 
ginia clergy to consider the introduction 
of bishops, 1771, 231-232. 



Howard, Sir Philip, Governor of Jamaica, 
instructions relating to the Bishop of 
London's jurisdiction, 30. 

Howard, of Effingham, Lord, Governor 
of Virginia, letter to from Bishop Gib- 
son mentioning the supposed order of 
1685, 31; text of the letter, 282. 

Huetson, Michael, Archdeacon of Armagh, 
Bray's candidate for the commissary- 
ship in Maryland, 40. 

Hunter, Colonel, Governor of New York, 
correspondence with Dean Swift rela- 
tive to the colonial bishopric, 91-92. 

Independence. See Episcopacy. 
Inglis, Charles, author of the anonymous 

Vindication of the Bishop of Llandafps 

Sermon, 1767, 163-164. 
Instructions to colonial governors relating 

to the Bishop of London's jurisdiction, 

26, 29, 30, 60, 293-294. 

Jenkyns, Sir Leoline, provision in his 
will for clergymen to go to sea or to the 
colonies, 1685, 34. 

Jenney, Robert, rector of Christ Church, 
Philadelphia, and commissary of Penn- 
sylvania, his license to officiate in Christ 
Church, 309-310; text of his reply to 
Sherlock's circular letter, 1751, 318- 
320. 

Johnson, Gideon, commissary of the Caro- 
linas, 1 707-1 716, 48. 

Johnson, Governor Nathaniel, connection 
with the South Carolina Church Acts 
of 1704, 4°-47- 

Johnson, Samuel, joins the Church of 
England, 102 ; efforts and appeals 
for the settlement of bishops in Amer- 
ica, in 1 723-1 724, 103 ; in 1732 and 
subsequent years, 105-108 ; views on 
the relation between episcopacy and 
independence, 106-108 ; correspond- 
ence with Seeker relative to the Amer- 
ican episcopate, 1754-1760,133-134; 
1 760-1 775, 248-252 ; monarchical ut- 
terances, 250-251. 

Johnson, Sir William, doubts the reality 
of the fear concerning the introduction 
of bishops, 271. 

Johnson, Wm. S., son of Samuel, in Eng- 
land, as agent for Connecticut, 1766- 



GORDON TO LONDON CHRONICLE. 



363 



1771, 218 ; writes his father that there 
is little hope of securing an American 
episcopate, 253 ; opposed to bishops 
with civil authority, 257-258. 
Juxon, William, consecrated Bishop of 
London October 3, 1633, 17 ; a sup- 
porter of Laud, 17; high treasurer of 
England in 1635, 19. 

Kennett, Bishop, correspondence with 
Dr. Colman relative to bishops, 1713- 
1717, 99. 

Keppel, Frederick, Bishop of Exeter, ad- 
vocates American bishops in a sermon 
before the society, 1770, 191. 

King, John, Bishop of London, 161 1- 
162 1, connection with the church in 
Virginia, 10, II. 

King William's bounty, 28. 

King's Chapel, built in 1689, 28; the min- 
ister, church wardens, and vestry peti- 
tion for bishops in 1713, 98-99; joins 
with Christ Church in an appeal for 
American bishops in 1727, 104. 

Laud, William, Bishop of London, 
1 628-1 633, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
1 63 3-1 645, policy of extending the 
establishment, 12, 13; suggestions to 
the Privy Council in 1632, 13, 14; pro- 
cures an Order in Council, October, 
1633, vesting the control over foreign 
churches in the Bishop of London, 14; 
becomes Archbishop of Canterbury, 
August, 1633, x 45 obtains the es- 
tablishment of a commission for govern- 
ing the colonies in 1634, 18-20; another 
in 1636, 20; efforts to check emigration 
to New England, 1637, 20-21 ; designs 
a bishop for New England, 1638, 21; 
summary of relations with the church 
abroad, 22; execution, 1645, 22; attack 
on his policy of extending the Establish- 
ment in the London Chronicle, 1770, 
193-194; reference to his episcopizing 
project by the "Centinel," 1768, 205. 

Livingston, Wm., supplements Chauncy's 
Letter to a Friend by A Letter to the 
Bishop of Llandaff, 1767, 163. See also 
" American Whig." 

London, Bishop of, origin of colonial 
jurisdiction of the, 8-18; works relating 



to, 9; reasons for vesting control over 
foreign churches in, 17, 18; authority 
to be observed in the English settle- 
ments at Delft, 18; exercises no au- 
thority in the American colonies before 
the Restoration, 18; to issue testimo- 
nials to emigrants, 20; evidences of 
activity in American church affairs after 
1660, 22 ff.; instructions to governors 
relating to his colonial jurisdiction, 26, 
29, 30, 60; reference to his ecclesiasti- 
cal authority in 1704, 47-48; references 
to his authority in the pre-Gibson 
period, 50-5 1; origin and scope of his 
authority discussed by Commissary Gor- 
don in 1724, 53-55; the attorney and 
solicitor general's report, 1725, that he 
has no legal authority in the colonies, 
57; relation to the Virginia Tobacco 
Acts, 226; discussion of his jurisdiction 
over clerical offences, 1770, 1771, 228- 
230; references to, by the clergy of 
Virginia in their controversy over the in- 
troduction of bishops. 232-234; Osbal- 
deston thinks his jurisdiction is in- 
fringed on by the North Carolina Acts 
of 1760, 242; authority during the 
period from Sherlock's death to the 
Revolution, 246-247; the American 
Revolution puts an end to his colonial 
authority, 263; act empowering him to 
ordain candidates from other countries 
without the oath of allegiance, 263; 
summary of the history of his American 
jurisdiction, 268; text of Commissary 
Gordon's letter discussing the origin 
and scope of his authority, 279-282; 
additional instructions relating to his 
colonial jurisdiction, 1 729-1 730, 293- 
294; list of the bishops occupying 
the see during the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries, 349. See also 
Abbot, Compton, Gibson, Hayter, Juxon, 
King, Laud, Lowth, Osbaldeston, Robin- 
son (John), Sherlock, Terrick. 

London, diocese of, extent in 1628, 11. 

London Chronicle, attacks on Seeker's 
Letter in its columns, 1770, 192-194; 
contributions to the newspaper contro- 
versy, 210-213; regards the religious 
and political questions as closely allied, 
210-213. 



3^4 



INDEX. 



Lowth, Robert, Bishop of London, 1777- 
1787, as Bishop of Oxford urges the 
necessity of American bishops, 1771, 
191; refuses to ordain priests for the 
American Methodists, 267. 

Ludwell, Thomas, sends to Lord Arling- 
ton a description of Virginia, 1666, 23. 

Lynch, Sir Thomas, Governor of Jamaica, 
account of the church in his province, 
25; instructions relating to church 
affairs, 29. 

McClenaghan, William, case of, 134- 
136. 

McKean, Robert, accompanies Dr. Myles 
Cooper in his Southern journey to 
agitate the introduction of bishops, 
231. 

Madison, James, consecrated Bishop of 
Virginia, 1790, 267. 

Martyr, Justin, Chandler's quotation from, 
167. 

Maryland, number of Episcopal clergy- 
men, in 1 67 1 and 1700, 33; abortive 
attempt to set up a spiritual court, 
1708,40-41; limitations of commissa- 
rial authority in, during Bishop Robin- 
son's regime, 41-42; condition of the 
church during the Gibson period, 71- 
73; failure of the Assembly to set up a 
lay court for ecclesiastical causes, 1724, 
74-76; condition of the church after 
the resignation of Commissary Hender- 
son, 77-78; Alexander Adams's account 
of the condition of the church, 1752, 
129; attempt of the Maryland assem- 
bly to establish a spiritual court, 1768, 
259-260. 

Massachusetts, state of the church at the 
accession of Gibson, 65; struggles of 
the Episcopalians to secure exemption 
from taxation, 70-7 1; weakness of the 
church after the death of Gibson, 258; 
beginning of annual conventions of the 
clergy, 258-259; evidences of hostility 
to bishops, 259; the majority of the 
Episcopal clergy leave the colony, 1776, 
259; measure to secure the loyalty of 
the remaining clergy to the American 
cause, 1777, 260. 

Massachusetts House of Representatives, 
vote thanks in 1749 to a committee 



opposing the introduction of bishops, 
115,311; instruct their agent to oppose 
the introduction of bishops, 1768, 225, 
235-236. 

Mather, Cotton, expression of the atti- 
tude of New England Independents 
toward the Church of England, 139. 

Mauduit, Jasper, agent for Massachusetts, 
1762-1766, later chairman of the com- 
mittee on the civil affairs of the dis- 
senters, 223. 

Mayhew, Jonathan, fears of episcopal 
tyranny, 1750, 145; publishes his Ob- 
servations, 1763, 146; discussion of his 
argument, 1 47- 149; an "advertise- 
ment" of, 1763, 1 50-151; his Defense 
of his Observations, 1763, 153-154; 
replies to Seeker's Answer in his Re- 
marks on an Anonymous Tract, 1764, 
154-158; his final position on the 
question of an American episcopate, 

157, 158. 

Mayhew Controversy, cause and occasion, 
145-146; ecclesiastical and political 
results, 159-160. 

Methodus Procedendi, issued by Bishop 
Gibson, 1728, 61; analysis of, 61-63; 
reprint of, from the original pamphlet, 
294-309. 

Moravian and Roman Catholic bishops, 
Chauncy suggests that they can confer 
ordination, 180; Chandler considers 
and refutes this suggestion, 183-184. 

Morell, William, said to have exercised 
commissarial functions in New Eng- 
land, 3. 

Moss, Charles, Bishop of St. David's, advo- 
cates American bishops in a sermon 
before the Society, 191-192. 

Murray, Alexander, proposed as bishop of 
Virginia in 1662, 90. 

Myles, Samuel, rector of King's Chapel, 
Boston, answers Gibson's queries, 1724, 
65-66; petitions against the holding of 
a synod of the New England churches 
in 1725, 67-68. 

Nelson, William, discusses the jurisdic- 
tion of the Bishop of London over cler- 
ical offences, 228-230. 

Newcastle, Duke of, correspondence on the 
subject of an American episcopate, 1749- 



LOWTH TO RESIDENT BISHOPS. 



365 



1750, 1 17-122, passim; text of the 
correspondence, from the Newcastle 
Papers, 320-332. 

New England, a bishop designed for, in 
1638, 21; condition of the church in 
1678, 28; attempt of the congregational 
churches to hold a synod in 1725 de- 
feated by the English government, 67- 
70; efforts of the clergy to secure 
bishops for the American colonies, 
103-105 ; six leading clergymen approve 
Butler's plan of 1750, 124; episcopal 
controversies in, 139 ff. 

Newspaper controversy, 195 ff.; sum- 
mary of nature and results, 213-214. 

Newton, Thomas, Bishop of Bristol, advo- 
cates bishops in a sermon before the 
Society, 1769, 191. 

New York, the church established in three 
counties, 1693, 34. 

New York and New Jersey clergy. See 
Conventions. 

Non-juring bishops in the colonies, 103. 

North Carolina, Church Act of 1755, 130- 
131; Vestry Acts of 1760, 241-243; 
Church Act of 1765 approved by 
Bishop Terrick, 243-244; goes in force 
in the province, 244-245. 

Observations of the Bishop of London 
regarding a suffragan for America, 
1707, summary and discussion of, 
97-98; complete text of, 277-278. 

Order in Council, the traditionary order 
of the Laudian period, 8, 9; the order 
of October, 1633, vesting the control of 
foreign churches in the Bishop of Lon- 
don, 14; its provisions, 15; a prece- 
dent for the American authority of 
future Bishops of London, 15; did 
not extend to the American colonies, 
16; discussion of the supposed order 
of 1685, 31-32, 54-55; McConnell's 
erroneous citation concerning an order 
of 1703, 55; extracts from the order of 
1633, 273-274; text of the order of 
1686, suspending Bishop Gibson from 
the exercise of his colonial jurisdiction, 
283; text of an order of August, 1726, 
relating to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in 
the plantations, 287-289. 

Osbaldeston, Richard, Bishop of London, 



1 762-1 764, 241; his attitude on colo- 
nial questions, 241; objections to the 
North Carolina Vestry Acts of 1760, 
241-243. 

Parliament, act of 1784 relative to the 
ordination of candidates for priest's or- 
ders from other countries, 263; act of 
1786 relative to candidates for episco- 
pal consecration, 266; text of the acts 
of 1784 and 1786, 346-348. 

Parliamentary legislation, opposed by the 
colonists, 220. 

Parson's Cause. See Virginia Tobacco 
Acts. 

Pennsylvania, clause in the charter of 
1 680-1 681 relating to the church, 36- 

37- 
Philips, Francis, curate of Christ Church, 

Philadelphia, case of, 1715, 37-39. 
Pigot, George, urges the establishment of 

an American episcopate, 102. 
"Presbyter in Old England," arguments 

against the introduction of American 

bishops, 177. 
Presbyterians of New York, applications 

for a charter, of incorporation, 181 ; 

possible effect in bringing on the news- 
paper controversy, 146. 
Price, Roger, made commissary of New 

England, 1730, 71. 
Proclamations, issued April 10 and May 1, 

1637, to restrict immigration to New 

England, 20, 21. 
Protestant Episcopal Church of the United 

States, established in 1789, 267. 
Provoost, Samuel, his opposition to Sea- 
bury, 266; consecrated bishop of New 

York, 1787, 266, 267. 

Quakers, Chandler asserts that those of 
Pennsylvania and New Jersey are not 
opposed to an American episcopate, 
185. 

Ramsay, John, case of, 227-228. 

Resident bishops, efforts of the Society to 
secure, 36; suggested for Virginia in 
1697 and 1724, 45; classification of the 
attempts to secure, before 1748, 88-89; 
the Laudian project of 1638, 89; appli- 
cations come mostly from the Northern 



366 



INDEX. 



and Middle colonies, reasons why the 
project was not favored by the Southern 
colonies, 89; project to send Dr. Alex- 
ander Murray to Virginia in 1662, 90; 
rumor that bishops are to be sent to the 
colonies in 1664, 91; abortive project 
of Chaplain Miller of New York, 91; 
project to make Dean Swift bishop of 
Virginia, 1712-1713, 91-92; advocated 
in Virginia's Cure, 1662, 92-93; peti- 
tion of the clergy assembled at Burling- 
ton, New Jersey, 1705, 95; petitions 
from the Northern colonies, 98-99; ad- 
dress from Christ Church, Philadelphia, 
and St. Anne's, Burlington, 1718, 101- 
102; probable effect of their introduc- 
tion, no; gifts for their establishment, 
iio-iii; summary of the efforts to es- 
tablish, before 1748, ni-112; a depu- 
tation sent to England in 1749 to protest 
against their introduction, 115, 311; 
functions enumerated in the Society's 
Abstract for 1715, 154-155; dangers to 
be apprehended from, 219-220; Massa- 
chusetts and Connecticut instruct their 
agents to oppose, 225; attitude of the 
clergy of Virginia and Maryland, 230- 
231; correspondence relating to, from 
1760 to the Revolution, 248-253; mo- 
tives of the English government in 
withholding, 255-258; the governor 
and assembly oppose an attempt of 
the Maryland clergy to secure, 1770, 
261; summary of the history of the 
attempts to secure, 268; their introduc- 
tion not opposed after the Revolution, 
270-271; doubts on the reality of the 
fear concerning their introduction, 
271; arguments against their intro- 
duction into the colonies, see "Ameri- 
can Whig," Blackburne, " Centinel," 
Chauncy, Convention of Delegates, 
Foot, Sir Isaac, Gwatkin, Livingston, 
London Chronicle, Mayhew, " Pres- 
byter," Sherman, Walpole; argu- 
ments for, see "Anatomist," Apthorp, 
Browne, Caner, Chauncy, Conven- 
tion of the clergy of New York and 
New Jersey, Ewer, Inglis, Seeker, 
Sherlock, "Whip for the American 
Whig." See also Bray, Butler, Comp- 
ton, Eliot, Evans, Madison, Pigot, 



Provoost, Seabury, Society for Propa- 
gating the Gospel, Talbot, White, 
Episcopal controversies. 

Restoration, evidences of relations of the 
Bishop of London with American 
church affairs after, 22 ff. 

Robinson, John, Bishop of London, 1713— 
1723, instructions to Commissary Bull, 

49-5°- 

Robinson, Wm., commissary of Virginia, 
226-227. 

Royal Commission of 1728, summary of 
its provisions, 58; Bishop Sherlock's 
opinion of its scope, 58-59; English 
translation of its text, 289-293. See 
also Gibson. 

Sancroft, Archbishop, temporarily in 
charge of the colonial church, 32. 

Seabury, Samuel, goes to England for 
episcopal consecration, 1783, 264; 
consecrated by the Scotch non-juring 
bishops, 1784, 265; his reasons for ap- 
plying to the non-jurors, 265-266; 
opposition to, 266-267; invited to at- 
tend the Protestant Episcopal General 
Convention, 1789, and made first presi- 
dent of the House of Bishops, 267. 

Seeker, Thomas, Bishop of Oxford, later 
Archbishop of Canterbury, urges the 
establishment of an American episco- 
pate in a sermon before the Society, 
1740, 109; correspondence with Dr. 
Johnson relative to the American 
episcopate, 133-134, 248-252; author 
of the anonymous Answer to Mayhew's 
Observations, 1764, 147; discussion of 
his argument, 151-152; his letter, in 
reply to Horatio Walpole's of 1750, 
published in 1769, 186-187; his argu- 
ment, 187-189. 

Seymour, Colonel, Governor of Maryland, 
quarrels with Commissary Bray, 39- 
40. 

Sharp, Granville, doubts the validity of 
orders conferred by the non-jurors, 266. 

Sherlock, Thomas, Bishop of London, 
1748-1761; views on the origin of the 
Bishop of London's colonial jurisdiction, 
9-12; comments on the clause in 
Lynch's instructions relating to the 
Bishop of London, 29; commentary on 



RESTORATION TO TERRICK, RICHARD. 



367 



the Gibson patent of 1728, 58-59; suc- 
ceeds Gibson as Bishop of London, 
1748, 113; policy with regard to the 
colonies, 113-114; sends an agent to 
the colonies, 115-116; presents his 
Considerations to the English govern- 
ment, 1749, 116; correspondence with 
English officers of state relative to the 
introduction of bishops, 1 749-1 750, 116- 
122; finally decides to assume ecclesi- 
astical charge of the colonies, 1752, 125; 
allusions in correspondence with Dr. 
Doddridge to his colonial jurisdiction, 
126-127; position regarding the Vir- 
ginia Tobacco Acts, 130; discussion of 
the North Carolina Church Act of 1755, 
130-131; his reasons for refusing to 
renew the Gibson patent, 1 31-133; sum- 
mary of his policy and work, 137-138; 
motives for desiring to substitute the 
jurisdiction of American bishops for 
that of the Bishop of London, 246- 
247; reprint of his circular letter of 
1 750 to the colonial commissaries, 311- 
312; correspondence with Newcastle 
and Horatio Walpole, relative to the 
introduction of American bishops, from 
the Newcastle Papers, 1 749-1 750, 320- 
332; reprint of his "Report on the 
State of the Church in England in the 
Colonies," 1749, from the New York 
Documents, 332-345. 

Sherman, Roger, letter attributed to him 
on the introduction of American 
bishops, 218-220. 

Shirley, Thomas, Governor of Massachu- 
setts, secures exemption of Episcopa- 
lians from taxation, 71 ; provisions 
relating to religion in his instructions, 

71- 

" Short Way to End Strife," a, discusses 
the nature of the proposed episcopate, 
202-203. 

Smith, H. B., views on the ecclesiastical 
causes of the American Revolution, 270. 

Smith, Dr. Wm., provost of the College 
of Philadelphia, cooperates with the 
clergy of Christ Church in a patriotic 
letter to Bishop Terrick, 1775, 207; ad- 
vocates the restoration of commissaries, 
1762,247. See " Anatomist." 

Society for Propagating the Gospel, num- 



ber of missionaries in the eighteenth 
century, 33; origin and aims, 34 ff.; 
attitude toward the South Carolina 
Church Act of 1704, 35-36; efforts to 
secure American bishops, 1 703-1 71 5, 
ioo-ioi; instructions to missionaries 
relative to relations with the civil 
authorities, 1753, 1756, 124-125; dis- 
cussion of its motives, 149-1 50 ; charges 
of episcopizing by Blackburne, 190; 
extracts from annual sermons on the 
subject of American bishops, 1764-1771, 
191 -192; motives vindicated by the 
Address of 1 771, 237. See also Resident 
bishops. 

South Carolina, Church Act of 1704, 35; 
46-48; the church established in the 
province, 1706, 48; evidence of oppo- 
sition to bishops, 256. 

Spencer, A., sent by Sherlock to the colo- 
nies in 1749 to ascertain the feeling 
with regard to the introduction of 
bishops, 115-116; text of his letter to 
Bishop Sherlock relating to his mission 
to the colonies in behalf of an Ameri- 
can Episcopate, 310-31 1. 

Stiles, Dr., his application to the clerk of 
the New York convention for copies of 
its petitions for bishops, 180. 

Swift, Dean, plan to make him bishop of 
Virginia, 91-92. 

Synod. See New England and Convention 
of Delegates. 

Talbot, John, appeal for American 
bishops in 1 702, 93-94 ; subsequent 
efforts, 94-95 ; said to have received 
Episcopal consecration from the non- 
juring bishops, 103. 

Tennison, Archbishop, connection with the 
Society, 35; bequeathes £ 1000 toward 
the support of an American bishop, 
1715, in. 

Terrick, Richard, Bishop of London, 1761- 
177 1, his share in defeating the peti- 
tion of the New York Presbyterians for 
a charter of incorporation, 181 ; ex- 
presses a desire for bishops resident 
in the colonies, 1765, 1771, 234-235; 
accession, 243; approves the North 
Carolina Church Act of 1765, 243-244 ; 
comments on his own jurisdiction, 244- 



368 



INDEX. 



245 ; urges the establishment of Amer- 
ican bishops, 245. 

"Timothy Tickle." See "Whip for the 
American Whig." 

Toleration. See " Horatio." 

" Veridicus's verses to the Whig Writer," 
1768, 210. 

Virginia, first charter, 9 ; second charter, 
10 ; provisions relating to the estab- 
lishment in, 9, II, 16-17; condition 
of the church described in Virginians 
Cure, 23 ; ecclesiastical abuses in, 27 ; 
number of Episcopal clergymen in 1671 
and 1700, 33; suggestions for the 
ecclesiastical government of, 1724, 44- 
45 ; conditions of the church during 
the Gibson period, 78-80 ; treatment 
of dissent in the colony, 126 ; clerical 
discipline in, 227-231 ; opposition to 
bishops, 230 ff.; attitude of the clergy 
toward the introduction of bishops, 
230-231. 

Virginia clergy, efforts to secure the intro- 
duction of bishops, 231-235. 

Virginia House of Burgesses, resolution of 
thanks to the opponents of the measure 
to introduce American bishops, 1771, 

235. 
Virginia Tobacco Acts, Sherlock's relation 
to, 130, 226. 

Walpole, Horatio, correspondence relat- 
ing to the introduction of bishops into 
the colonies, 1 749-1 750, 1 18-122; text 
of the correspondence, 320-332. 

Weekly Miscellany, extracts from, relat- 



ing to Bishop Gibson's efforts to secure 
a legal authorization for the exercise of 
his colonial jurisdiction, 283-285. 

Welton, Richard, said to have received 
Episcopal consecration from the non- 
juring bishops, 103. 

Wentworth, John, Governor of New 
Hampshire, project to establish the 
Church of England in the province, 
1769, 260. 

Wetmore, James, his Vindication in an- 
swer to Noah Hobart's sermon of 1746, 
141. 

" Whip for the American Whig," motives 
for writing, and strictures on the 
" American Whig " and " Centinel," 
201. 

White, Wm., consecrated Bishop of Penn- 
sylvania, 1787, 266-267. 

Whitefield, George, tried and suspended 
from preaching by Commissary Garden 
of South Carolina, 1740-1741, 80-86. 

Wilberforce, Samuel, views on the origin 
of the Bishop of London's colonial 
jurisdiction, 12. 

Wilkinson, Christopher, appointed com- 
missary for the Eastern Shore of Mary- 
land, 1716, 41; sends Bishop Gibson 
an account of his work under Bishop 
Robinson, 1724, 73-74. 

Willard, Secretary, expresses views of 
moderate New Englanders on the sub- 
ject of American bishops, 1750, 145. 

Worsley, H., Governor of Barbadoes, cor- 
respondence with Commissary Gordon, 
relation to the Bishop of London's 
colonial jurisdiction, 1 723-1 724, 279. 



Harvard Historical Studies. 

Published under the Direction of the Department of History and Gov- 
ernment from the Income of the Henry Warren Torrey Fund. 



I. THE SUPPRESSION OF THE AFRICAN SLAVE-TRADE 
TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1638-187&. 
By W. E. B. Du Bois, Ph.D., Professor in Wilberforce Univer- 
sity. 8vo. pp. xi-335. $1.50 net. 

II. THE CONTEST OVER THE RATIFICATION OF THE 
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IN THE STATE OF MAS- 
SACHUSETTS. By S. B. Harding, A.M., Assistant Professor 
of History in Indiana University. 8vo. pp. vi-194. $1.25 net. 

III. A CRITICAL STUDY OF NULLIFICATION IN SOUTH 

CAROLINA. By D. F. Houston, A.M., Adjunct Professor 
of Political Science in the University of Texas. 8vo. pp. x-169. 
$1.25 net. 

IV. NOMINATIONS FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE IN THE 

UNITED STATES. By Frederick W. Dallinger, A.M., 
Member of the Massachusetts Senate ; formerly Secretary of the 
Republican City Committee of Cambridge, Massachusetts. 8vo. 
pp. xiv-290. $1.50 net. 

V. A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BRITISH MUNICIPAL HISTORY, 
INCLUDING GILDS AND PARLIAMENTARY REP- 
RESENTATION. By Charles Gross, Ph.D., Assistant Pro- 
fessor of History in Harvard University. 8vo. pp» xxxiv-461. 
$2.50 7iet. 

VI. THE LIBERTY AND FREE SOIL PARTIES IN THE 
NORTHWEST. By Theodore C. Smith, Ph.D. 8vo. pp. 
xii-351. $1.75 net. 

VII. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR IN THE ENGLISH 
COLONIES OF NORTH AMERICA. By Evarts Bou- 
telle Greene, Professor of History in the University of 
Illinois. 8vo. pp. x-392. $1.50 net. 

VIII. THE COUNTY PALATINE OF DURHAM. A Study 
in Constitutional History. By Gaillard Thomas Laps- 
ley, Ph.D. 8vo. pp. xii-380. $2.00 net. 

IX. THE ANGLICAN EPISCOPATE AND THE AMERI- 
CAN COLONIES. By Arthur Lyon Cross, Ph.D., In- 
structor in History in the University of Michigan, sometime 
Assistant in History in Harvard University. 8vo. pp. 368. 

$2.50 net 

LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., New York. 



v x 









H 2 C 



%s 






S^T" 











& 






O.. *o.." .«\ ^» 



• -^ V . 







4? 
















r o V 




r Ao^ 



.4 3* 











!T ,\£^W* *V C V-jflBfec. • 



